[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 76 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4563-H4596]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 139 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. 1361.

                              {time}  1507


                     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. 1361) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1996 for the 
Coast Guard, and for other purposes, with Mr. Dickey 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 North Carolina [Mr. Coble] and the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] will each be recognized for 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble].
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, many Americans, and for that matter many Members of 
this body, do not really know the Coast Guard. I want to introduce the 
Coast Guard that I know to those uninformed about America's oldest 
continuous seagoing service.
  The Coast Guard is the butt of many jokes, some submitted good-
naturedly, some submitted maliciously. Many refer to the Coast Guard as 
the shallow water Navy, hooligan Navy, as shallow-water sailors or 
hooligan sailors.
  Even Hollywood gets into the act. A recently released movie depicted 
a military force about to depart on a combat mission. The commander of 
the force said to his group, ``Be careful, men.'' One of his troops 
replied, ``If I wanted to be careful, I would have joined the Coast 
Guard.''
  This comment, of course, drew wild laughter from the moviegoers and 
was yet another example of a joke at the expense of the Coast Guard. 
Permit me to identify those who do not consider the Coast Guard a joke.
  The wife whose husband was adrift in a treacherous sea was rescued by 
the Coast Guard. The husband whose wife was stranded at sea in a 
disabled vessel rescued by the Coast Guard. Property owners whose 
property could have been destroyed by oil spills, property protected 
and saved by the Coast Guard. Seamen who rely upon accurately marked 
aids to navigation maintained by the Coast Guard. The mama and daddy 
whose child is hauled from the grasp of an angry sea by a Coast Guard 
helicopter crew.
  In the poem, Mr. Chairman, entitled ``The Coast Guard Cutter,'' the 
poet vividly and emotionally portrays these lifesavers as legitimate 
heroes:

     [[Page H4564]] But the men that sail the ocean
       In a wormy, rotten craft,
     When the sea ahead is mountains
       With a hell-blown gale abaft;
     When the mainmast cracks and topples
       And she's lurchin' in the trough--
     Them's the guys that greets the Cutter
       With the smiles that won't come off.
     When the old storm signal's flyin'
       Every vessel seeks a lee,
     'Cept the Cutter, which ups anchor
       And goes ploughin' out to sea.
     When the hurricane's a-blowin'
       From the Banks to old Cape Cod,
     Oh, the Cutter, with her searchlight,
       Seems the messenger of God.

                           *   *   *   *   *

     She goes thumpin' and a bumpin'
       When the waters are a hell,
     Savin' ships. Here's to you, Cutter,
       For we like you mighty well!

  This is the Coast Guard, Mr. Chairman, I want to introduce to my 
colleagues today who may not know her, as we debate and discuss the 
1996 authorization bill for the Coast Guard.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1361. Before I discuss 
this bill, I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the full 
committee, Mr. Shuster, our ranking minority member, Mr. Mineta, and 
the ranking minority member of the Coast Guard and Maritime 
Transportation Subcommittee, Mr. Traficant, and their staff for their 
help and cooperation on this legislation. H.R. 1361 was developed in a 
bipartisan manner, and deserves the support of all the Members.
  The primary purpose of H.R. 1361 is to authorize funds for the U.S. 
Coast Guard for fiscal year 1996. H.R. 1361 authorizes the portion of 
the Coast Guard budget that requires an annual authorization at the 
level requested by the President, approximately $3.7 billion. This is 
compared to the fiscal year 1995 appropriated level for these programs 
of $3.6 billion.
  Specifically, this legislation includes approximately $2.6 billion 
for operating expenses, $428 million for acquisition of vessels, 
aircraft, and shore facilities, and $582 million for retired pay. The 
bill also authorizes reductions in Coast Guard operations, including 
personnel reductions and the closure of 23 search and rescue stations.
  Also included in the bill is a provision to allow us to more closely 
monitor the Coast Guard drug interdiction mission. In 1989, the Coast 
Guard spent 24 percent of its operating budget on drug interdiction. 
Since fiscal year 1994, Coast Guard drug interdiction funding has been 
reduced by $21 million. Last year, less than 9 percent of the Coast 
Guard's operating funds were devoted to drug interdiction because the 
Coast Guard was forced to divert a large amount of its resources to 
respond to the crises in Haiti and Cuba. I fear that a continuation of 
this low level of funding will increase the amount of illegal narcotics 
being smuggled into our country. Admiral Kramek testified before our 
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee that the Coast 
Guard plans to spend about 12 percent of its operating budget on drug 
interdiction during the next fiscal year. Because this is such an 
important Coast Guard mission, section 103 of H.R. 1361 requires the 
Secretary of Transportation to submit to our committee quarterly 
reports on Coast Guard drug interdiction expenditures. This will give 
us timely information on this important topic, and allow us to act to 
prevent a diversion of resources to any other Coast Guard activity.
  Title II of H.R. 1361 deals with several internal Coast Guard 
personnel management matters.
  Title III of the bill addresses issues related to navigation safety 
and waterway services management. This title renews several important 
navigation safety advisory committees which advise the Coast Guard on 
matters relating to marine safety issues.
  Title IV of this legislation includes several miscellaneous 
provisions. One of these sections exempts dedicated oilspill response 
vessels from certain requirements that apply to oil tank vessels. It is 
not appropriate to regulate oilspill cleanup vessels in the same manner 
as commercial oil tank vessels. This section in the bill gives the 
Coast Guard the authority to prescribe appropriate manning requirements 
for oilspill response vessels by regulation.
  Title IV also contains several commonsense amendments to the Oil 
Pollution Act of 1990, including a provision which requires the Coast 
Guard to regulate edible vegetable oils differently than toxic 
petroleum oils. I strongly support this change which will end an 
unnecessary and damaging burden on our Nation's farmers.
  Title V of H.R. 1361, Coast Guard Regulatory Reform, is important in 
establishing U.S. ship construction and operational standards that are 
comparable to international standards. These provisions will allow the 
U.S. maritime industry to be more competitive with foreign ocean 
carriers.
  Title VI of the bill contains several provisions related to U.S. 
vessel documentation, including several limited Jones Act waivers.
  Title VII of the bill contains many technical and conforming 
amendments suggested by the Coast Guard, including provisions to 
implement the new International Tonnage Convention for the measurement 
of vessels.
  Finally, title VIII of H.R. 1361 contains amendments to allow the 
U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary, a 36,000 member voluntary organization, to 
provide assistance to the Coast Guard and the boating public that the 
Commandant finds appropriate.
  At the appropriate time, I will offer an en bloc amendment which 
makes several technical corrections and includes several 
noncontroversial amendments to the bill.
  I urge the Members to support this legislation.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as an original cosponsor of this bill, I rise in strong 
support. It represents a commonsense approach to a wide range of issues 
that face our Coast Guard.
  The bill was drafted in a bipartisan fashion, and I commend the 
distinguished Chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Coble], for his efforts. Nobody in the Congress is better 
prepared to lead this subcommittee than the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Coble] who is in fact a veteran of Coast Guard affairs. I 
am sure the other person in here, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Studds], who is not present, after the wealth of knowledge he gained on 
that committee for years, also I think is a valuable resource. I 
commend the chairman. I am proud to work with him.
  I want to also commend the chairman of the new Transportation 
Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Shuster]. He has done a tremendous job. I am proud to support him, and 
our ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta]. I want 
to commend the Coast Guard and also the administration for their 
assistance.
  Many of the provisions before us were proposed by the Coast Guard. 
They had merit and were, in fact, thus incorporated into this bill.
  I want to specifically commend the Commandant of the Coast Guard, 
Admiral Kramek, for the strong commitment he has to fighting drugs and 
the extraordinary efforts the Coast Guard has made in the area of drug 
interdiction.
  I am confident that under the leadership of the good admiral, the 
Coast Guard will continue to play a vital role in the war on drugs as 
well as the other missions.
  This bill includes a provision that requires the Coast Guard to 
report quarterly to Congress on the amount of money that the Coast 
Guard is devoting, in fact, to drug interdiction. This provision will 
allow the committee to monitor and get an accurate account, a snapshot, 
if you will, of how well the Coast Guard is perhaps performing its 
duties in the areas of drug interdiction.
  I look forward to working with the chairman, the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Coble], and Admiral Kramek to ensure that the Coast Guard 
has the resources necessary to get that job done.
  I would like to note the bill includes a Buy American provision I 
inserted in the bill. It is a modest provision. It puts the Coast Guard 
on notice that Congress expects the Coast Guard, whenever practicable, 
to purchase American-made equipment and products.
  [[Page H4565]] But for the time being, I would like to talk about an 
amendment I intend to offer that I believe makes the bill a great bill. 
As well as other Members of this Congress, I have concerns of the 
closing of 23 multimission small boat stations that are on track here 
to be in fact closed.
  Now, I know there are a number of amendments that speak to some 
criteria and procedures about this safety concern and this closing 
apparatus, but the truth of the matter is, any and all of these 
amendments, if passed, will amount to one official action here today: 
These 23 stations will be closed. They will have some nice language. 
There will be some little exercises people will go through, but they 
will be closed.
  And here is my concern: Passage of the Traficant amendment, or 
failure to pass it, will have no bearing on my final vote. I support 
this bill. But let me get right to the point. We have had testimony 
before the Congress that is clear and explicit.
  The last time Congress allowed for the closing of small boat 
stations, lives were lost. The Coast Guard has a major mission: safety.
  The Traficant amendment deals with $3 million in finances. Now my 
staff tells me maybe $2 million; $2 million in savings from the closing 
of the stations to jeopardize possible lives could be garnered by 
making some administrative adjustments in travel or expense. So let us 
not talk about money.
  When the Coast Guard starts to be driven by financial concerns, then 
the major issue of the Coast Guard, safety, has been in fact, 
compromised.
  The Traficant amendment would bar the Coast Guard from closing any of 
these stations, but it would still give the Coast Guard the flexibility 
in transferring resources as long as some active-duty personnel remain. 
For example, here is what the Traficant amendment will do: They could 
transfer out nearly every part of that station, but the Traficant 
amendment says one full-time Coast Guard personnel
 officer shall remain to coordinate and stabilize programs that are in 
fact operated with cooperation of the auxiliary.

  I use the words ``weekend warriors''; that is not a fair explanation 
of our auxiliary. The auxiliary is a great force we have for the Coast 
Guard. I do not want my words to seem demeaning.
  As a former sheriff, let me tell you something, ladies and gentlemen, 
when you take away full-time personnel, you do not have the same focus 
that you once had.
  Now, if we are going to have a voluntary Coast Guard in 23 stations, 
that will be the decision that you will make and you will vote for, Jim 
Traficant cannot accept that, and I am saying for this $3 million, 
Congress, do not close these stations.
  Now, I have heard all of that business about the Congress cannot 
micromanage. My God, let us forget micromanaging. We set policy. The 
policy the Congress would be setting through the Traficant amendment 
is, ``Coast Guard, save lives. The Congress of the United States 
charges you with saving lives.'' If there is a problem on money, we 
will talk about it. But the Congress of the United States saying our 
policy is find that $3 million somewhere else.
  Now, I do not know how else we can save that. The Coast Guard's own 
analysis indicated that for each small boat station closure, there 
would be at least one additional life lost every 12 years. I find any 
Government prospectus that, in fact, delineates the future loss of life 
from an action taken by this Congress is totally unacceptable, without 
merit, and should not be tolerated by the Congress itself.
  But in any regard, there has been a substitute passed in the 
committee. That substitute gives flexibility to the Coast Guard to deal 
with safety issues, but I do not believe the Congress of the United 
States should delegate lives when there is documented evidence of the 
loss of life on record.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I had a question to the gentleman and 
the chairman, if he might.
  Is it your understanding that the amendment offered by the chairman, 
and adopted in committee, which amends section 1016(c) of the Oil 
Pollution Act of 1990 provides an exemption for marinas from the 
requirement to demonstrate $150 million in financial responsibility 
under that section?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. The answer I would have would be yes. I would defer to 
the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I concur with the gentleman from Ohio. I say 
to the gentleman from Connecticut that is, indeed, correct.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I thank both gentlemen, for this is an issue 
critically important. It would have devastated most of the small 
boatyards along the shore. I commend them for their action.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1361, the 
Coast Guard Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. I want to thank 
Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Mineta for bringing this bill to 
the floor today.
  This bill authorizes the important activities of the U.S. Coast Guard 
for fiscal year 1996. My district is home to the Coast Guard Academy 
and the Coast Guard Research and Development Center. I am pleased that 
the bill authorizes $22.5 million for R&D. The R&D Center serves the 
entire Coast Guard and is involved in wideranging research to improve 
maritime safety, aids to navigation, and oil spill detection. As 
everyone knows, the Academy is responsible for training the next 
generation of Coast Guard officers.
  I also support this bill because it includes language similar to 
legislation I have introduced, H.R. 1002, to provide relief to marinas 
from onerous financial responsibility requirements of the Oil Pollution 
Act of 1990 [OPA 90]. Under section 1016 of OPA, offshore facilities 
handling petroleum products are required to demonstrate $150 million in 
financial responsibility to cover the costs of cleaning up oil spills. 
While I believe this is entirely appropriate for entities handling 
large volumes of heavy oil, the Minerals Management Service [MMS], 
which is writing the regulations governing this section, has 
interpreted it to apply to marinas. This interpretation would be 
devastating to marinas and detrimental to millions of boaters coast to 
coast.
  As my colleagues know, marinas are overwhelmingly small businesses 
which handle relatively small amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel. They 
do not pose a major threat to the environment. In fact, according to 
the Coast Guard, in fiscal year 1993 fuel spills from marinas totaled a 
little more than 9,000 gallons nationwide. Under the MMS proposal, 
marinas would be required to have insurance policies providing $150 
million in liability coverage. According to the Marina Operators 
Association of America [MOAA], such policies would carry premiums 
between $150,000 and $450,000 per year. The vast majority of marinas 
could not afford this expense and would be forced to close their fuel 
docks. This would have adverse effects on their businesses as well as 
millions of Americans who fuel their boats safely and conveniently at 
marinas. I am also concerned that if fuel docks are closed, many 
boaters would begin carrying fuel in their cars and transferring it to 
boats with funnels. This practice would substantially increase the 
likelihood of spills and accidents.
  Under an amendment offered by Mr. Coble and adopted by the 
Transportation Committee, marinas would be exempt from the financial 
responsibility requirements. While this amendment goes beyond the scope 
of my bill, I am pleased that marinas will be protected. I want to take 
this opportunity to thank Mr. Coble and Mr. Traficant and their staffs 
for working with me on this issue. This amendment will protect small 
businesses as well as ensure that boaters continue to have access to 
fuel in a safe, convenient, and environmentally sound manner.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1361.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Let me say to the gentleman from Connecticut I believe 
the language that goes beyond Congress' stopping these closures will 
ultimately bring us into concerns that you ultimately have. I would 
recommend, if your concern lies in those areas, to give us 
consideration.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman 
of the full committee.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation.
  [[Page H4566]] Sometimes here in Washington we confuse what is 
controversial with what is important, and even though this legislation 
is not controversial, it is extremely important.
  Let me share with you what the Coast Guard does for America on the 
average day, 365 days out of the year. Every day, on average, our Coast 
Guard boards 90 large vessels for port security checks, processes 120 
seamen's documents, seizes 209 pounds of marijuana and 170 pounds of 
cocaine, worth $9.2 million, conducts, and get this, conducts 191 
search and rescue missions, responds to 34 oil or hazardous chemical 
spills, conducts 120 law enforcement boardings, identifies 65 
violations, investigates 17 marine accidents, inspects 64 commercial 
vessels, saves 14 lives, assists 328 people, saves $2.5 million in 
property, services 150 aids to navigation, and interdicts 176 illegal 
immigrants.
  So, while this legislation is not controversial, has strong 
bipartisan support, it is extremely important legislation. In fact, it 
provides $3.7 billion a year to perform these missions.
  Our Coast Guard today is represented by 37,000 active duty personnel, 
8,000 reservists, 6,000 civilians, and over 35,000 volunteers. I know 
of few agencies in Government where the number of volunteers, over 
35,000, virtually equals the number on active duty as in the Coast 
Guard.
  So we have a Coast Guard that is deeply involved every day in making 
life better for the American people.
  Our Defense Department and the people in the military certainly do a 
fine job, but they spend most of their time training. In fact, we hope 
that they never have to go into actual action.

                              {time}  1530

  The Coast Guard, however, quite to the contrary, every day is 
involved in performing vital services for the American people 365 days 
a year. So I urge strong support for this legislation. Our Coast Guard 
deserves nothing less.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], a fine member of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Traficant] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to speak particularly to the Traficant 
amendment which will be before this body soon. The question that must 
be decided by this Congress:
  Is one-tenth of 1 percent of the Coast Guard budget too much to 
prevent loss of life?
  We heard already the actuarial statistics from the Coast Guard, cold 
numbers; that is, once in 12 years each of these 23 stations will 
experience a loss of life because of the closures. That means two lives 
per year. We are saving $2.6 million for two lives per year if we 
believe the Coast Guard estimate. The last time the Coast Guard closed 
these 2 life saving stations in my district five people drowned within 
a 2-month period, so maybe they are off by factor of two, or three, or 
five.
  I say to my colleagues, however you look at it, if you use the most 
conservative estimates, we're going to say that there is not one-tenth 
of 1 percent of waste in the entire $2.7 billion operating budget of 
the U.S. Coast Guard? If that agency is run so well that there is not a 
penny of waste, then we should put them in charge of the Pentagon, we 
should put them in charge of HUD, we should put them in charge of all 
of the Federal Government of the United States of America. Is there 
anybody on this side of the aisle who believes there is any Federal 
operation, any Federal agency, that doesn't have one-tenth of 1 percent 
of savings they can't find if they look hard? That's what we are 
debating here, lives. We're going to lose lives; people are going to 
die. I can put names to the people who died in my district the last 
time we did this. Five people in 2 months, but they tell us, ``No, it 
will only be two people a year.'' Well, even if it's one person a year, 
I believe that this body will be making a mistake if it doesn't tell 
the Coast Guard to go back to the drawing boards, find that one-tenth 
of 1 percent of savings and fully fund these life saving stations.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, again, as part of the general debate, I 
wanted to indicate very strongly that this is a good bill other than 
the fact that the Coast Guard has proposed closing these 23 stations 
around the country. The problem that I see, and again the gentleman 
from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] already pointed it out, is that, when these 
closures occurred back in 1988, for a period of time there were deaths, 
and there were serious incidents that occurred without the Coast Guard 
presence, and we do not want that to occur again. We have had 
documentation of the problems that occurred when many of these stations 
that are now proposed for closure were, in fact, closed going back 6 or 
7 years ago.
  I always try to look at these things from what I would call a cost-
benefit analysis, if my colleagues will. Think about what we are 
talking about here. The Coast Guard has estimated that closing these 
stations will save about $6 million. Various estimates that have been 
composed today go lower than that, to 3 million, or perhaps $2 million, 
but all of those things assume that a certain number of lives will be 
lost because of these stations being closed. Again I find that 
unacceptable.
  One of the biggest problems that I have also with the proposed 
streamlining and closure of the stations is the fact that it assumes 
that State, or local or nonprofit agencies will take up the slack, that 
somehow, if we close these stations, that the State; for example, in 
New Jersey the State Marine Police, or the local municipal fire 
department, or the Coast Guard Auxiliary, are going to step in and 
pursue those search-and-rescue functions. It is not the case. That 
assumption is a false one.
  I say to my colleagues, if you look at my own State of New Jersey, 
our own State Marine Police has been downsized considerably during the 
last few years. The local fire departments in some cases may have a 
boat or some person who has some knowledge of boat safety, but not 
enough to step in, and even when we talk about the Coast Guard 
Auxiliary and suggest somehow they're going to take over this 
responsibility, let me assure you that, if the station closes and there 
is no regular Coast Guard personnel at that station, the Coast Guard 
Auxiliary won't be able to perform these function either. One of the 
beauties of the Auxiliary is that they work with the Coast Guard, so 
what we're saying over and over again is this is not an acceptable 
solution.
  We need support for the Traficant amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Traficant] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Coast Guard bill and, in 
particular, the Traficant amendment to H.R. 1361.
  In my district in northern Michigan, it has more coast line than any 
other congressional district except Alaska, but yet the Coast Guard is 
proposing to close Station Marquette located in the middle of the Upper 
Peninsula of Michigan, and they plan there to operate a search and 
rescue on this vast Northern Michigan Peninsula from the extreme ends 
of the peninsula in Portage and Ste. St. Marie. Now the shore line of 
Lake Superior up there is about 500 miles long, and our search-and-
rescue missions will be on the extreme ends instead of in the middle 
where Marquette is, and at Marquette they have a 44-foot lie boat 
capable of operating in the hazardous waters of Lake Superior. Now, if 
we are going to have to rely upon Ste. St. Marie and Portage to come 
over with a 44-foot boat for search and rescue from Ste. St. Marie, it 
takes 14 hours in a 44-foot boat, and, from Portage, 6\1/2\ hours.
  I know that the distinguished chairman may argue, and has argued in a 
Dear Colleague letter, that the Coast Guard has a nationwide system of 
air stations with helicopters for search and rescue which is much 
faster than these 40-foot boats. I would agree that the problem is in 
northern Michigan there are no helicopters in the Upper Peninsula. They 
must come from the Lower Peninsula, and then, when they finally get 
from the Lower Peninsula to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, they have 
to stop and refuel. So it 
[[Page H4567]] costs not only precious lives, but also many valuable 
seconds in search and rescues and having to wait for helicopters coming 
from another part of the State to try to patrol the areas of northern 
Michigan. In Marquette county alone there are over 8,000 recreational 
boaters, and we should not put these people at risk by closing down 
their station. Marquette is a major shipping destination.
  Marquette is also a major shipping destination in the Great Lakes, 
and more than 7\1/2\ million tons of iron ore flows from Marquette, but 
the Coast Guard, besides search and rescue, must also enforce our 
environmental laws, our law enforcement laws, fishing regulations, so 
it does not seem practical, at least from this point of view, that we 
close down Marquette, not just for search and rescue, but also for 
enforcement of environmental laws, pollution laws and fishing laws.
  So we, in the past few years, we have asked the Coast Guard to 
continue to expand their services. They have. It has put great strain 
on their budget. We understand that, but I do not think at this time we 
can stand here and in a straight face say we can jeopardize lives, 
environmental laws, law enforcement of our Nation's waters, to save a 
mere $3 million in a multibillion dollar budget. So I strongly urge my 
colleagues to support this bill and, more importantly, to support the 
Traficant amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Before yielding back my time, let me say this:
  With 60-miles-per-hour winds and no visibility these real high-tech 
helicopters are about as useful--I better not say it. My colleagues 
know what I am talking about from razorback country.
  This is an excellent bill. None of the debate that has come from this 
side of the aisle is to any way take away from this bill and the first 
effort of this fine chairman.
  I was hoping that maybe we would come to some understanding on the 
limited amount of money and the Congress of the United States would 
say: ``Fine, we're willing to negotiate and give you a free reign. 
You've done a good job, Coast Guard, but one thing we can be sure of. 
When we have information that says lives can be placed at risk, the 
decision is easy. The Congress will not allow the dice to be rolled.''
  I am hoping the Congress will be able to look at that, pass that one 
amendment. It could make this a great bill. But in any regard I am 
going to vote for this bill. I support the efforts of this fine 
chairman. I commend him for his efforts here today.
  Mr. Chairman, having talked so long, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy between 
myself and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble].
  I rise today to engage in a colloquy to confirm my understanding of 
the impact of the Coast Guard reauthorization bill on Santa Cruz, CA.
  Am I correct in my understanding of the bill that the substation will 
not be closed if public safety is endangered by departure of the Coast 
Guard presence?
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. COBLE. That is correct, sir.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, am I correct in assuming that a substation 
could remain open according to this bill if a community could come 
together to create a reasonable solution to maintaining limited Coast 
Guard presence without incurring costs associated with maintaining a 
Coast Guard substation facility?
  Mr. COBLE. Is there a situation such as that in the Santa Cruz Port 
District?
  Mr. FARR. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The Santa Cruz Port District has offered 
to retain crew quarters in the current building. It has also offered to 
provide patrol boat berthing adjacent to the current Coast Guard 
building, and provide a communications network. The Port District would 
also maintain the premises and provide administrative support to meet 
any needs that the Coast Guard has in deploying resources to the Santa 
Cruz Harbor District. Personnel cost would be minimal as Coast Guard 
reservist would man the facility and a Coast Guard presence would be 
required only on weekends during summer months. Essentially, the 
community would provide for all costs associated with maintaining the 
substation. Does this sound like a reasonable solution?
  Mr. COBLE. If the gentleman would yield, it does indeed sound 
reasonable, and it is my belief that this bill would not prohibit such 
an approach from occurring.
  Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman very much for that understanding, Mr. 
Chairman, and I say to the gentleman, I look forward to working with 
you.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I urge the Congress to support the 
Traficant amendment and the bill, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1361, 
the Coast Guard Authorization Act. When the House considered similar 
legislation in the previous Congress, I offered an amendment directing 
the Secretary of Transportation to submit an annual report to the 
relevant House Committee and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science 
and Transportation no later than April 1.
  This report was to have described in detail the status of 
implementation of the vessel traffic service [VTS] in all ports ranked 
in the port needs study issued by the Coast Guard in 1991. However, the 
Coast Guard authorization was not enacted in the 103d Congress.
  While the VTS system has yet to be implemented in Tampa, after a 
number of meetings with Coast Guard officials, I am satisfied that the 
Coast Guard is committed to implementation of this important service as 
soon as is practicable. For this reason, I am not offering my amendment 
today.
  My interest in the VTS began when on August 10, 1993, a collision 
occurred in a navigation channel outside the entrance to Tampa Bay in 
Florida, 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 clean-up of this spill 
was enormous--several million dollars at least.
  Mr. Chairman, this was not the first accident to occur at the mouth 
of Tampa Bay. Many of us 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 materials. As 
I mentioned earlier, in 1991, the 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 VTS is designed to prevent these types of accidents, 
and the VTS has been successfully implemented by the Coast Guard in 
several major port areas.
  The 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, further implementation of the VTS was pushed back 
yet another year because, and I quote from that bill's report language: 
``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, the 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--and I believe we have 
moved beyond this state of affairs. However, I will be working closely 
with the Coast Guard and the Department of Transportation to ensure 
that the VTS is implemented as soon as possible.
  This was the purpose of my amendment in the last Congress and I was 
pleased that it was adopted by this Chamber without dissent. VTS is a 
cost-effective answer to environmental disasters, such as the one that 
took place in Tampa Bay in 1993. 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.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear that I believe the Coast Guard must 
speed up its implementation of the VTS in all the ports listed in the 
port needs study. Likewise, I believe it is imperative that this 
Congress work with the Coast Guard in making sure that this fiscally 
responsible program is put into place.
  I express this desire, not only in memory of the lives that have been 
lost in accidents such as those that I have described, but for the 
[[Page H4568]] sake of the lives we will save through the VTS program.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1361, the fiscal 
year 1996 Coast Guard Authorization bill.
  In particular, I want to thank the chairman and ranking Democrat of 
the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee for including 
a number of Rhode Island specific amendments in the bipartisan en bloc 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the Coast Guard is vital to the safety of our Nation's 
commercial fisherman, pleasure boaters, and merchant mariners. Each 
year, Coast Guardsmen and women save thousands of Americans from death 
at sea. In addition, these brave men and women help prevent many more 
tragedies through education and prevention programs, including efforts 
to curb boating under the influence. H.R. 1361 aims to continue this 
tradition of vigilance, and it has my full support.
  This legislation will also provide specific relief to several vessel 
owners in Rhode Island, who currently cannot engage in the coast-wise 
trade because of the Jones Act. By providing Jones Act waivers for the 
Isabelle and three Harbor Marine barges and a fisheries waiver for the 
Aboriginal, the House will ensure that the owners of these vessels will 
be able use their boats as intended. The Isabelle, an historic ketch 
built in Scotland in 1924, will be used as a charter boat. Harbor 
Marine Corporation's barges will have clear titles. Last, the 
Aboriginal's owner, a disabled firefighter and Vietnam veteran, will 
finally be able to start his charter fishing business.
  In addition, the chairman's en bloc amendment will permit the 
transfer of un-used Coast Guard property on Block Island, RI to the 
town of New Shoreham. The people of Block Island have leased this 
property for a number of years for education, police activities, harbor 
safety efforts, and environmental protection. In addition, the town has 
made over $60,000 in repairs and alterations to the buildings on the 
property, including new wiring, heating, windows, and a roof. It is my 
understanding that the Coast Guard supports this transfer, and I thank 
the chairman and Mr. Traficant for including this provision in the en 
bloc amendment.
  While I believe this legislation contains many important initiatives, 
I am concerned that H.R. 1361 would allow the Coast Guard to close a 
number of important small boat stations. These stations, many of which 
have been in existence for decades, are usually located in areas where 
a high visibility Coast Guard presence sends a signal of reassurance 
and deterrence. Such is the case with the Point Judith Station in 
Narragansett, RI. Point Judith is the home to my State's fishing fleet. 
It is also a focal point for the State's pleasure boaters and fishing 
charter boats. The same can be said of the summer station on Block 
Island. Although I have met with the Coast Guard to discuss their 
proposals, I must agree with the Town of Narragansett and others in 
Rhode Island that these stations should not be closed. Therefore, I 
will support the Traficant amendment which prohibits the closure of 
small boat stations and ensures rapid, local response to emergency 
calls, unless the Secretary of Transportation finds that maritime 
safety will not be diminished.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1361, and I thank 
the subcommittee for the concern it has shown for Rhode Island's needs.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman. I rise today in support of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's en bloc amendment to H.R. 
1361. This amendment contains an important provision to ensure that the 
so-called Johnson Act does not interfere with riverboat gambling in 
Indiana. This noncontroversial measure, which has the bipartisan 
support of Transportation Committee members, is based upon legislation 
I introduced in April, H.R. 1419.
  I would like to clarify for my colleagues that this provision would 
not affect any other State, or State laws regarding gambling, since the 
Johnson Act exemption would apply only to Indiana riverboats operating 
within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Indiana. Indeed, my 
goal is to ensure that an outdated Federal statute does not prevent the 
State of Indiana from implementing its riverboat gambling legislation.
  In 1993, the Indiana General Assembly approved riverboat gambling 
legislation to allow gambling on Lake Michigan. However, as cities in 
northwest Indiana prepare to implement the Indiana Riverboat Gambling 
Act, concerns have been raised that the Johnson Act, passed in 1951 to 
prohibit the transportation of gambling devices on U.S.-flag ships in 
special maritime and territorial waters of the United States, may 
prohibit the use of casino gambling boats on Lake Michigan.
  The U.S. Department of Justice has not yet decided if the Johnson Act 
would actually prohibit the operation of riverboat casinos. This 
legislation would ensure smooth sailing regardless of the Justice 
Department's decision.
  It's better to be safe than sorry. The people of Indiana have spoken 
and I want to ensure that a section of an archaic law doesn't stand in 
the way of the people's will and continued efforts to create jobs and 
improve the economy in northwest Indiana.
  I would like to thank Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
Chairman Shuster, ranking member Mineta, Coast Guard and Maritime 
Transportation Subcommittee Chairman Coble, ranking member Traficant, 
and the Republican and Democratic committee and subcommittee staff for 
their cooperation and assistance.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice opposition to the Coast 
Guard's current fee schedule that took effect on May 1, 1995. This user 
fee schedule is overly burdensome to small operators.
  The final rule states that as of May 1, 1995, all inspected 
commercial vessels, including vessels carrying as few as seven 
passengers, will be required to pay the Coast Guard a user fee for the 
inspection of their vessels. The fees for inspected operators with 
vessels less than 54 feet would be $670 per year, escalating up to 
$1,200 for larger vessels. For small seasonal marine businesses, this 
fee represents a large percentage of their net revenue.
  I believe these fees would have a disproportionate impact on small 
business. In my district, thousands of small operators would be hurt by 
this rule.
  The Coast Guard should adjust its proposed fees for small operators 
to ensure that they are not regressive. This can be done by basing user 
fees on the actual time it takes to inspect a small vessel, usually 2 
to 4 hours, which would translate into a fee much lower than announced.
  The Coast Guard states that its fee is $87 per hour for inspections. 
The one topside inspection done each year and the one drydock 
inspection done every 18 months, takes approximately 3 hours per year 
per vessel. Therefore, the inspection fee should be no higher than $261 
per year. In addition, a number of vessels could be inspected at one 
time, thus increasing the efficiency of the travel time spent by the 
Coast Guard, and possibly lowering the fees further.
  I support the efforts of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] to 
eliminate the regressive nature of these fees. I urge my colleague from 
North Carolina, Mr. Coble to work with us toward this end.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for the 
Coast Guard and the critical work that it performs.
  The First District of Oregon, which I represent, is extremely 
grateful for the prominent presence of the Coast Guard in several 
locations along our shoreline. This agency saves lives, helps prevent 
accidents from occurring, and responds quickly to clean up oil spills. 
This agency is also responsible for drug interdiction and the 
enforcement of numerous laws and treaties governing the high seas. The 
Coast Guard in northern Oregon is also closely involve with our local 
communities in improving response to oil spills and training civilian 
oil spill cleanup volunteers.
  In particular, I can't overemphasize how heavily dependent we in 
coastal States are upon the marine safety assistance services the Coast 
Guard provides. During the last year and a half, the Coast Guard in 
Astoria participated in more than 1,200 search and rescue operations, 
saving more than 70 lives and protecting more than $150 million worth 
of property.
  I am concerned that we do not take for granted the role of this 
extremely valuable agency. Plans to close or consolidate Coast Guard 
stations must be carefully scrutinized to ensure that they will result 
in no decrease in public safety. Yes, we need to do all we can to 
downsize and streamline our Government--but not at the expense of human 
life. In the past, Coast Guard station closures have led to the loss of 
lives because the agency was stretched too thin to respond adequately 
to marine emergencies.
  I am pleased to add my voice to the support expressed by my 
colleagues for the fiscal year 1996 authorization for the Coast Guard. 
The amount authorized under H.R. 1361 provides an increase from 1995 
levels and I am pleased to see this rise in funding. In past years, 
this agency has consistently been underfunded. It's time to give the 
Coast Guard the resources 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. 1361.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1361, which 
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1996 for the U.S. Coast Guard. 
The bill funds vital areas for the U.S. Coast Guard so that it can 
perform its mission. Those areas include operations and maintenance; 
acquisition, construction and improvements; research and development, 
test, and evaluation of technologies, materials, and human factors 
directly relating to improving the performance of the Coast Guard; 
retired 
[[Page H4569]] pay; alternations or removal of bridges over navigable 
waters; and environmental compliance and restoration functions.
  I also strongly support provisions in the bill to extend advisory 
committees until the year 2000. These statutory committees were 
established to advise, consult with and make recommendations to the 
secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating on 
matters relating to the transit of vessels and products to and from 
ports. These committees are very effective. The Port of Houston, which 
is in my district has 2 members on the 18 member committee.
  I do, however, have some concerns over a provision in the bill to 
consolidate the Coast Guard marine safety office in Houston and 
Galveston into a single site. I believe it is imperative that the Coast 
Guard remains on the industrialized portion of the channel, and I 
wholeheartily support Congressman Green's amendment to prohibit this 
move. The proposed consolidation of the Galveston and Houston 
facilities from Galena Park to Clear Lake would seriously threaten the 
response time in cases of accidents or spills in the upper reaches of 
the Houston ship channel.
  Additionally, I have some concerns as to why the provisions of the 
wreck removal bill were not incorporated in this bill. I understand 
that an attempt was made by Congressman Laughlin to have a wreck 
removal amendment added, he was informed that it was not germane to 
this bill. This is an important issue for the Port of Houston, and I 
suspect that it is equally important for other ports across the 
country. Our Nation's port and waterways are vital to the economy, 
trade, and national security. The closure of ports and waterways for 
any length of time due to obstruction by sunken or grounded vessels 
blocks the flow of commerce and results in significant financial loss. 
I believe this should be addressed, and I commend Congressman Laughlin 
for his effort in trying to get such an amendment added to this bill.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join my colleagues in 
supporting H.R. 1361 the Coast Guard Authorization bill for fiscal year 
1996.
  Among the bill's provisions is one which I and other members of our 
delegation reintroduced as a bill earlier this session to help 
California's tourism industry. That provision closes an existing 
loophole through which California loses an estimated $82 million 
annually.
  Currently, under the Johnson Act, a cruise ship which makes an 
intrastate stop is subject to State law even if that ship travels in 
international waters and is destined for another State or foreign 
country. Using this loophole and its authority to regulate gambling, 
States like California prohibit gambling aboard these ships.
  Section 408 of H.R. 1361, like our original bill, would allow 
gambling on internationally-bound cruises. The provision would not 
cause mainland gambling to expand beyond current State controls. 
Instead, the provision simply amends the Johnson Act to allow Federal 
control over voyages that begin and end in the same State so long as 
any stopovers are part of a voyage to another State or foreign country 
which is reached within 3 days of the start of the voyage. Cruises 
within the boundaries of the State of Hawaii are expressly excluded 
from the effect of this provision.
  This issue is one of great interest to the citizens of San Pedro and 
Catalina Island whom I represent. According to Catalina's Chamber of 
Commerce, the city of Avalon itself loses $1.5 million annually in 
canceled port visits because of existing law.
  Similarly, the city of San Diego, from which many cruises originate, 
is affected. In the last Congress, San Diego's representative, Lynn 
Schenk, introduced the original legislation on behalf of her 
constituents and the cruise industry. That measure passed the House, 
only to die in the Senate. Today's action is a tribute to her dedicated 
efforts.
  I urge support for this provision, and for the bill.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the Coast 
Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee for including the 
language of my bill, H.R. 1550, in his en bloc amendment to H.R. 1361, 
the Coast Guard Authorization Act.
  My language is noncontroversial. It concerns the vessel Carolyn which 
has been operating safely in Hardin County in my district for several 
decades. This vessel has passed numerous inspections but does not have 
documentation as to where it was built.
  This is a violation of the Jones Act which requires documented proof 
that a vessel was built in the United States in order to be certified.
  The vessel Carolyn is owned and operated by the Hardin County Highway 
Department. It is used to push a barge holding automobiles across the 
Tennessee River in Saltillo, TN.
  There is no bridge in Saltillo. Many families and incomes depend on 
the Saltillo Ferry to give access to both shores of the Tennessee 
River. Ending this ferry service would severely impact the entire 
community.
  The language of my bill provides for a waiver of the Jones Act for 
the Carolyn so that Coast Guard can certify the ferry for operation. 
This would simply allow the Carolyn to continue its important service 
to my constituents in Hardin County as it has dependably served for 
many years.
  Again, I appreciate the chairman for including my bill in this en 
bloc amendment to H.R. 1361 and encourage all of my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, the Coast Guard's mission in helping to 
provide for public boating safety is most important. As a Member whose 
district contains more shoreline than most other States, I sincerely 
appreciate the need for the Coast Guard.
  It is also why I am upset about proposals to close small Coast Guard 
facilities. We face a situation in my district where the facility at 
Harbor Beach may be closed, and the nearest coverage will come from 60 
miles away. No realistic individual believes that adequate assistance 
can be provided to boaters facing emergencies from such a distance. 
Certainly Mike Gage, the sheriff of Huron County, disagrees with the 
Coast Guard's assessment that his department can provide adequate 
coverage for the area.
  Public safety is also broader than the presence of a Coast Guard 
station. It is also affected by the provision of other Coast Guard 
services. Now we are hearing of several cases in which the Coast Guard 
will not place marker buoys in waterways this year because
 these waterways have not been dredged. The Coast Guard doesn't want 
the liability for placing the buoys, because the Corps of Engineers 
will not dredge these riverways as they have done in the past.

  Mr. Chairman, when people wonder what is wrong with Washington and 
agency bureaucrats, they need look no further than their own personal 
needs for day-to-day routine services.
  The Coast Guard is about public safety. Small stations should stay 
open, and I will support the Traficant amendment for this reason. 
Marker buoys need to be placed for the safety of the boating public, 
and if the Corps of Engineers has to reestablish its ability to provide 
the dredging that recreational boaters need before the Coast Guard can 
replace the buoys, then I will do all that I can to help restore that 
ability.
  Our citizens want their Government to recognize their needs. They 
deserve better treatment than they have been getting. Not every ship 
wreck will be as dramatic as that of the Edmund Fitzgerald, but every 
life lost and every injury sustained is just as important. We must find 
ways to make room for recreational boating activities.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I am in strong support of H.R. 1361, the 
Coast Guard authorization for fiscal year 1996 and urge our colleagues 
to support it as well.
  This is the first time the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee has brought a Coast Guard authorization bill to the House 
floor as it is new to our jurisdiction. When the House reorganized the 
committee structure at the beginning of this session, our committee was 
assigned the transportation jurisdiction of the old Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries Committee. I believe that that was an excellent step in the 
interest of good public policymaking, since there are many areas in 
which our transportation policies need to be considered together. I had 
long supported this area being placed under the Transportation 
Committee's jurisdiction. It is clear that this new arrangement is 
working very well.
  This bill authorized the Coast Guard at the level requested by the 
administration, approximately $3.8 billion. While this is a slight 
increase over the current year level, this amount assumes a major 
streamlining in Coast Guard personnel and budget already underway that 
will reduce the Coast Guard's size by 12 percent by 1999. The Coast 
Guard is an agency in the lead of finding ways to do more with less.
  The Coast Guard's responsibilities are enormous. They must conduct 
drug interdiction for the entire coastline of the United States; 
perform search and rescue along the entire coastline; ensure maritime 
safety in all navigable waters; be the frontline agency in all 
oilspills; protect our fisheries within the U.S. economic zone; respond 
to human migration crises; and enforce all U.S. laws on the high seas. 
Beyond these broad responsibilities, Congress has enacted a score of 
specific laws over the past 20 years which have given them specific new 
duties, particularly in the environmental and safety areas. The Coast 
Guard is doing all of this with a staff that is smaller than the size 
of the New York City Police Department.
  Beyond authorizing the necessary funds to carry out its 
responsibilities, this bill makes a number of important policy changes 
which are being described in detail by the distinguished subcommittee 
leaders, Chairman Coble and 
[[Page H4570]] the ranking Democrat, Mr. Traficant. But I would like to 
call attention to some of them.
  The bill takes very significant steps to reform Coast Guard safety 
laws so that the Coast Guard and vessel operators can ensure safety in 
a better, but also more cost-effective way. The bill brings a number of 
our navigation codes into conformance with international standards. It 
makes a number of narrow, but commonsense changes, in the Oil Pollution 
Act of 1990, as that law pertains to the carriage of vegetable oil, 
marinas and certain other offshore facilities. The bill also provides 
some direct safety benefits such as requiring emergency locator beacons 
on vessels in the Great Lakes and raising the penalties for not 
reporting accidents or operating a vessel without a licensed operator. 
The bill also makes important clarifications in the legal status of the 
Coast Guard auxiliary.
  Finally, I want to commend Chairman Coble and Congressman Traficant 
for their good work on this bill. It has been a cooperative, bipartisan 
effort, and the fine bill before us today reflects the manner in which 
they have approached their responsibilities.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that deserves all of our support. I urge 
that it be passed.
  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 purposes of amendment. The first two sections and 
each title are considered as read.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       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 For Fiscal Year 1996''.

  Mr. COBLE. 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 
North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

                        TITLE I--AUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 102. Authorized levels of military strength and training.
Sec. 103. Quarterly reports on drug interdiction.
Sec. 104. Safety determination for small boat closures.

               TITLE II--PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT

Sec. 201. Hurricane Andrew relief.
Sec. 202. Exclude certain reserves from end-of-year strength.
Sec. 203. Provision of child development services.
Sec. 204. Access to national driver register information on certain 
              Coast Guard personnel.
Sec. 205. Officer retention until retirement eligible.

     TITLE III--NAVIGATION SAFETY AND WATERWAY SERVICES MANAGEMENT

Sec. 301. Foreign passenger vessel user fees.
Sec. 302. Florida Avenue Bridge.
Sec. 303. Renewal of Houston-Galveston Navigation Safety Advisory 
              Committee and Lower Mississippi River Waterway Advisory 
              Committee.
Sec. 304. Renewal of the Navigation Safety Advisory Council.
Sec. 305. Renewal of Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Advisory 
              Committee.
Sec. 306. Nondisclosure of port security plans.
Sec. 307. Maritime drug and alcohol testing program civil penalty.
Sec. 308. Withholding vessel clearance for violation of certain Acts.
Sec. 309. Increased civil penalties.
Sec. 310. Amendment to require emergency position indicating radio 
              beacons on the Great Lakes.

                        TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 401. Transfer of Coast Guard property in Traverse City, Michigan.
Sec. 402. Transfer of Coast Guard property in Ketchikan, Alaska.
Sec. 403. Electronic filing of commercial instruments.
Sec. 404. Board for correction of military records deadline.
Sec. 405. Judicial sale of certain documented vessels to aliens.
Sec. 406. Improved authority to sell recyclable material.
Sec. 407. Recruitment of women and minorities.
Sec. 408. Limitation of certain State authority over vessels.
Sec. 409. Vessel financing.
Sec. 410. Sense of Congress; requirement regarding notice.
Sec. 411. Special selection boards.
Sec. 412. Availability of extrajudicial remedies for default on 
              preferred mortgage liens on vessels.
Sec. 413. Implementation of water pollution laws with respect to 
              vegetable oil.
Sec. 414. Certain information from marine casualty investigations 
              barred in legal proceedings.
Sec. 415. Report on LORAN-C requirements.
Sec. 416. Limited double hull exemptions.
Sec. 417. Oil spill response vessels.
Sec. 418. Offshore facility financial responsibility requirements.
Sec. 419. Manning and watch requirements on towing vessels on the Great 
              Lakes.
Sec. 420. Limitation on application of certain laws to Lake Texoma.

                 TITLE V--COAST GUARD REGULATORY REFORM

Sec. 501. Short title.
Sec. 502. Safety management.
Sec. 503. Use of reports, documents, records, and examinations of other 
              persons.
Sec. 504. Equipment approval.
Sec. 505. Frequency of inspection.
Sec. 506. Certificate of inspection.
Sec. 507. Delegation of authority of Secretary to classification 
              societies.

                   TITLE VI--DOCUMENTATION OF VESSELS

Sec. 601. Authority to issue coastwise endorsements.
Sec. 602. Vessel documentation for charity cruises.
Sec. 603. Extension of deadline for conversion of vessel M/V TWIN 
              DRILL.
Sec. 604. Documentation of vessel RAINBOW'S END.
Sec. 605. Documentation of vessel GLEAM.
Sec. 606. Documentation of various vessels.
Sec. 607. Documentation of 4 barges.

             TITLE VII--TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS

Sec. 701. Amendment of inland navigation rules.
Sec. 702. Measurement of vessels.
Sec. 703. Longshore and harbor workers compensation.
Sec. 704. Radiotelephone requirements.
Sec. 705. Vessel operating requirements.
Sec. 706. Merchant Marine Act, 1920.
Sec. 707. Merchant Marine Act, 1956.
Sec. 708. Maritime education and training.
Sec. 709. General definitions.
Sec. 710. Authority to exempt certain vessels.
Sec. 711. Inspection of vessels.
Sec. 712. Regulations.
Sec. 713. Penalties--inspection of vessels.
Sec. 714. Application--tank vessels.
Sec. 715. Tank vessel construction standards.
Sec. 716. Tanker minimum standards.
Sec. 717. Self-propelled tank vessel minimum standards.
Sec. 718. Definition--abandonment of barges.
Sec. 719. Application--load lines.
Sec. 720. Licensing of individuals.
Sec. 721. Able seamen--limited.
Sec. 722. Able seamen--offshore supply vessels.
Sec. 723. Scale of employment--able seamen.
Sec. 724. General requirements--engine department.
Sec. 725. Complement of inspected vessels.
Sec. 726. Watchmen.
Sec. 727. Citizenship and naval reserve requirements.
Sec. 728. Watches.
Sec. 729. Minimum number of licensed individuals.
Sec. 730. Officers' competency certificates convention.
Sec. 731. Merchant mariners' documents required.
Sec. 732. Certain crew requirements.
Sec. 733. Freight vessels.
Sec. 734. Exemptions.
Sec. 735. United States registered pilot service.
Sec. 736. Definitions--merchant seamen protection.
Sec. 737. Application--foreign and intercoastal voyages.
Sec. 738. Application--coastwise voyages.
Sec. 739. Fishing agreements.
Sec. 740. Accommodations for seamen.
Sec. 741. Medicine chests.
Sec. 742. Logbook and entry requirements.
Sec. 743. Coastwise endorsements.
Sec. 744. Fishery endorsements.
Sec. 745. Clerical amendment.
Sec. 746. Repeal of Great Lakes endorsements.
Sec. 747. Convention tonnage for licenses, certificates, and documents.

              TITLE VIII--COAST GUARD AUXILIARY AMENDMENTS

Sec. 801. Administration of the Coast Guard Auxiliary.
Sec. 802. Purpose of the Coast Guard Auxiliary.
Sec. 803. Members of the Auxiliary; status.
Sec. 804. Assignment and performance of duties.
Sec. 805. Cooperation with other agencies, States, territories, and 
              political subdivisions.
Sec. 806. Vessel deemed public vessel.
Sec. 807. Aircraft deemed public aircraft.
Sec. 808. Disposal of certain material.
                        TITLE I--AUTHORIZATIONS

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Funds are authorized to be appropriated for necessary 
     expenses of the Coast Guard for fiscal year 1996, as follows:
       (1) For the operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard, 
     $2,618,316,000, 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, $428,200,000, 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.

[[Page H4571]]

       (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, $22,500,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $3,150,000 shall be derived from the Oil 
     Spill Liability Trust Fund.
       (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, $582,022,000.
       (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, $16,200,000, 
     to remain available until expended.
       (6) For necessary expenses to carry out the Coast Guard's 
     environmental compliance and restoration functions, other 
     than parts and equipment associated with operations and 
     maintenance, under chapter 19 of title 14, United States 
     Code, 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 38,400 as 
     of September 30, 1996.
       (b) Military Training Student Loads.--For fiscal year 1996, 
     the Coast Guard is authorized average military training 
     student loads as follows:
       (1) For recruit and special training, 1604 student years.
       (2) For flight training, 85 student years.
       (3) For professional training in military and civilian 
     institutions, 330 student years.
       (4) For officer acquisition, 874 student years.
     SEC. 103. QUARTERLY REPORTS ON DRUG INTERDICTION.

       Not later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal year 
     quarter, the Secretary of Transportation shall submit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate a report on all expenditures 
     related to drug interdiction activities of the Coast Guard 
     during that quarter.

     SEC. 104. SAFETY DETERMINATION FOR SMALL BOAT CLOSURES.

       None of the funds authorized to be appropriated under this 
     Act may be used to close Coast Guard multimission small boat 
     stations unless the Secretary of Transportation determines 
     that maritime safety will not be diminished by the closures.
               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 Coast Guard personnel.

     SEC. 202. 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. 203. PROVISION OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

       Section 93 of title 14, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of paragraph 
     (t)(2), by striking the period at the end of paragraph (u) 
     and inserting ``; and'', and by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(v) make child development services available to members 
     of the armed forces and Federal civilian employees under 
     terms and conditions comparable to those under the Military 
     Child Care Act of 1989 (10 U.S.C. 113 note).''.
     SEC. 204. ACCESS TO NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER INFORMATION ON 
                   CERTAIN COAST GUARD PERSONNEL.

       (a) Amendment to Title 14.--Section 93 of title 14, United 
     States Code, as amended by section 203, is further amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     paragraph (u);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (v) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(w) require that any officer, chief warrant officer, or 
     enlisted member of the Coast Guard or Coast Guard Reserve 
     (including a cadet or an applicant for appointment or 
     enlistment to any of the foregoing and any member of a 
     uniformed service who is assigned to the Coast Guard) request 
     that all information contained in the National Driver 
     Register pertaining to the individual, as described in 
     section 30304(a) of title 49, be made available to the 
     Commandant under section 30305(a) of title 49, may receive 
     that information, and upon receipt, shall make the 
     information available to the individual.''.
       (b) Amendment to Title 49.--Section 30305(b) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by redesignating paragraph (7) 
     as paragraph (8) and inserting after paragraph (6) the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(7) An individual who is an officer, chief warrant 
     officer, or enlisted member of the Coast Guard or Coast Guard 
     Reserve (including a cadet or an applicant for appointment or 
     enlistment of any of the foregoing and any member of a 
     uniformed service who is assigned to the Coast Guard) may 
     request the chief driver licensing official of a State to 
     provide information about the individual under subsection (a) 
     of this section to the Commandant of the Coast Guard. The 
     Commandant may receive the information and shall make the 
     information available to the individual. Information may not 
     be obtained from the Register under this paragraph if the 
     information was entered in the Register more than 3 years 
     before the request, unless the information is about a 
     revocation or suspension still in effect on the date of the 
     request.''.

     SEC. 205. 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, on the date specified for the officer's discharge 
     in this section, the officer has completed at least 20 years 
     of active service or is eligible for retirement under any 
     law, be retired on that date.''.
     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. 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 of 
     Transportation 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. 303. 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, 2000.''; 
     and
       (2) in section 19 by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) The Committee shall terminate on October 1, 2000.''.

     SEC. 304. RENEWAL OF THE NAVIGATION SAFETY ADVISORY COUNCIL.

       (a) Renewal.--Section 5(d) of the Inland Navigational Rules 
     Act of 1980 (33 U.S.C. 2073) is amended by striking 
     ``September 30, 1995'' and inserting ``September 30, 2000''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The section heading for section 
     5(d) of the Inland Navigational Rules Act of 1980 (33 U.S.C. 
     2073) is amended by striking ``Rules of the Road Advisory 
     Council'' and inserting ``Navigation Safety Advisory 
     Council''.

     SEC. 305. RENEWAL OF 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, 2000''.

     SEC. 306. NONDISCLOSURE OF PORT SECURITY PLANS.

       Section 7 of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1226), is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection (c):
       ``(c) Nondisclosure of Port Security Plans.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, information 
     related to security plans, procedures, or programs for 
     passenger vessels or passenger terminals authorized under 
     this Act is not required to be disclosed to the public.''.

     SEC. 307. MARITIME DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING PROGRAM CIVIL 
                   PENALTY.

       (a) Penalty Imposed.--Chapter 21 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 2115. Civil penalty to enforce alcohol and dangerous 
       drug testing

       ``Any person who fails to comply with or otherwise violates 
     the requirements prescribed by the Secretary under this 
     subtitle for chemical testing for dangerous drugs or for 
     evidence of alcohol use is liable to the United States 
     Government for a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 for 
     each violation. Each day of a continuing violation shall 
     constitute a separate violation.''.
     [[Page H4572]]   (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of 
     sections at the beginning of chapter 21 of title 46, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating 
     to section 2114 the following new item:

``2115. Civil penalty to enforce alcohol and dangerous drug testing.''.
     SEC. 308. WITHHOLDING VESSEL CLEARANCE FOR VIOLATION OF 
                   CERTAIN ACTS.

       (a) Title 49, United States Code.--Section 5122 of title 
     49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c) Withholding of Clearance.--(1) If any owner, 
     operator, or person in charge of a vessel is liable for a 
     civil penalty under section 5123 of this title or for a fine 
     under section 5124 of this title, or if reasonable cause 
     exists to believe that such owner, operator, or person in 
     charge may be subject to such a civil penalty or fine, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, upon the request of the Secretary, 
     shall with respect to such vessel refuse or revoke any 
     clearance required by section 4197 of the Revised Statutes of 
     the United States (46 App. U.S.C. 91).
       ``(2) Clearance refused or revoked under this subsection 
     may be granted upon the filing of a bond or other surety 
     satisfactory to the Secretary.''.
       (b) Port and Waterways Safety Act.--Section 13(f) of the 
     Ports and Waterways Safety Act (33 U.S.C. 1232(f)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(f) Withholding of Clearance.--(1) If any owner, 
     operator, or person in charge of a vessel is liable for a 
     penalty or fine under this section, or if reasonable cause 
     exists to believe that the owner, operator, or person in 
     charge may be subject to a penalty or fine under this 
     section, the Secretary of the Treasury, upon the request of 
     the Secretary, shall with respect to such vessel refuse or 
     revoke any clearance required by section 4197 of the Revised 
     Statutes of the United States (46 App. U.S.C. 91).
       ``(2) Clearance refused or revoked under this subsection 
     may be granted upon filing of a bond or other surety 
     satisfactory to the Secretary.''.
       (c) Inland Navigation Rules Act of 1980.--Section 4(d) of 
     the Inland Navigational Rules Act of 1980 (33 U.S.C. 2072(d)) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Withholding of Clearance.--(1) If any owner, 
     operator, or person in charge of a vessel is liable for a 
     penalty under this section, or if reasonable cause exists to 
     believe that the owner, operator, or person in charge may be 
     subject to a penalty under this section, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, upon the request of the Secretary, shall with 
     respect to such vessel refuse or revoke any clearance 
     required by section 4197 of the Revised Statutes of the 
     United States (46 App. U.S.C. 91).
       ``(2) Clearance or a permit refused or revoked under this 
     subsection may be granted upon filing of a bond or other 
     surety satisfactory to the Secretary.''.
       (d) Title 46, United States Code.--Section 3718(e) of title 
     46, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e)(1) If any owner, operator, or person in charge of a 
     vessel is liable for any penalty or fine under this section, 
     or if reasonable cause exists to believe that the owner, 
     operator, or person in charge may be subject to any penalty 
     or fine under this section, the Secretary of the Treasury, 
     upon the request of the Secretary, shall with respect to such 
     vessel refuse or revoke any clearance required by section 
     4197 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (46 U.S.C. 
     App. 91).
       ``(2) Clearance or a permit refused or revoked under this 
     subsection may be granted upon filing of a bond or other 
     surety satisfactory to the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 309. INCREASED CIVIL PENALTIES.

       (a) 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''.
       (b) Operation of Uninspected 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. 310. AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE EMERGENCY POSITION INDICATING 
                   RADIO BEACONS ON THE GREAT LAKES.

       Paragraph (7) of section 4502(a) of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting ``or beyond three nautical 
     miles from the coastline of the Great Lakes'' after ``high 
     seas''.
                        TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 401. TRANSFER OF COAST GUARD PROPERTY IN TRAVERSE CITY, 
                   MICHIGAN.

       (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 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.
       (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.

     SEC. 402. TRANSFER OF COAST GUARD PROPERTY IN KETCHIKAN, 
                   ALASKA.

       (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 health 
     or social services facility.
       (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 
     health or social services facility.
     SEC. 403. 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.''.

     SEC. 404. BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS DEADLINE.

       (a) Remedies Deemed Exhausted.--Ten months after a complete 
     application for correction of military records is received by 
     the Board for Correction of Military Records of the Coast 
     Guard, administrative remedies are deemed to have been 
     exhausted, and--
       (1) if the Board has rendered a recommended decision, its 
     recommendation shall be final agency action and not subject 
     to further review or approval within the Department of 
     Transportation; or
       (2) if the Board has not rendered a recommended decision, 
     agency action is deemed to have been unreasonably delayed or 
     withheld and the applicant is entitled to--
       (A) an order under section 706(1) of title 5, United States 
     Code, directing final action be taken within 30 days from the 
     date the order is entered; and
       (B) from amounts appropriated to the Department of 
     Transportation, the costs of obtaining the order, including a 
     reasonable attorney's fee.
       (b) Existing Deadline Mandatory.--The 10-month deadline 
     established in section 212 of the Coast Guard Authorization 
     Act of 1989 (Public Law 101-225, 103 Stat. 1914) is 
     mandatory.
       (c) Application.--This section applies to all applications 
     filed with or pending before the Board or the Secretary of 
     Transportation on or after June 12, 1990. For applications 
     that were pending on June 12, 1990, the 10-month deadline 
     referred to in subsection (b) shall be calculated from June 
     12, 1990.
     SEC. 405. JUDICIAL SALE OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTED VESSELS TO 
                   ALIENS.

       Section 31329 of title 46, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) This section does not apply to a documented vessel 
     that has been operated only--
       ``(1) as a fishing vessel, fish processing vessel, or fish 
     tender vessel; or
       ``(2) for pleasure.''.

     SEC. 406. IMPROVED AUTHORITY TO SELL RECYCLABLE MATERIAL.

       Section 641(c)(2) of title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting before the period the following: ``, 
     except that the Commandant 
     [[Page H4573]] may conduct sales of materials for which the 
     proceeds of sale will not exceed $5,000 under regulations 
     prescribed by the Commandant''.
     SEC. 407. RECRUITMENT OF WOMEN AND MINORITIES.

       Not later than January 31, 1996, the Commandant of the 
     Coast Guard shall report to the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate, on the status of and the problems in recruitment of 
     women and minorities into the Coast Guard. The report shall 
     contain specific plans to increase the recruitment of women 
     and minorities and legislative recommendations needed to 
     increase the recruitment of women and minorities.
     SEC. 408. LIMITATION OF CERTAIN STATE AUTHORITY OVER VESSELS.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``California Cruise Industry Revitalization Act''.
       (b) Limitation.--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.''.

     SEC. 409. VESSEL FINANCING.

       (a) Elimination of Mortgagee Restrictions.--Section 
     31322(a) of title 46, United States Code, is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(a) A preferred mortgage is a mortgage, whenever made, 
     that--
       ``(1) includes the whole of the vessel;
       ``(2) is filed in substantial compliance with section 31321 
     of this title; and
       ``(3)(A) covers a documented vessel; or
       ``(B) covers a vessel for which an application for 
     documentation is filed that is in substantial compliance with 
     the requirements of chapter 121 of this title and the 
     regulations prescribed under that chapter.''.
       (b) Elimination of Trustee Restrictions.--
       (1) Repeal.--Section 31328 of title 46, United States Code, 
     is repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 31330(b) of title 46, 
     United States Code, is amended in paragraphs (1), (2), and 
     (3) by striking ``31328 or'' each place it appears.
       (3) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 313 of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 31328.
       (c) Removal of Mortgage Restrictions.--Section 9 of the 
     Shipping Act, 1916 (46 App. U.S.C. 808) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking ``31328'' and inserting ``12106(e)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (1) by striking ``mortgage,'' each place 
     it appears; and
       (2) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (1) by striking ``transfer, or mortgage'' 
     and inserting ``or transfer'';
       (B) in paragraph (2) by striking ``transfers, or 
     mortgages'' and inserting ``or transfers'';
       (C) in paragraph (3)(B) by striking ``transfers, or 
     mortgages'' and inserting ``or transfers''; and
       (D) in paragraph (4) by striking ``transfers, or 
     mortgages'' and inserting ``or transfers''.
       (d) Lease Financing.--Section 12106 of title 46, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsections:
       ``(e)(1) A certificate of documentation for a vessel may be 
     endorsed with a coastwise endorsement if--
       ``(A) the vessel is eligible for documentation under 
     section 12102;
       ``(B) the vessel is otherwise qualified under this section 
     to be employed in the coastwise trade;
       ``(C) the person that owns the vessel, a parent entity of 
     that person, or a subsidiary of a parent entity of that 
     person, is engaged in leasing;
       ``(D) the vessel is under a demise charter to a person 
     qualifying as a citizen of the United States for engaging in 
     the coastwise trade under section 2 of the Shipping Act, 
     1916; and
       ``(E) the demise charter is for--
       ``(i) a period of at least 3 years; or
       ``(ii) such shorter period as may be prescribed by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(2) On termination of a demise charter required under 
     paragraph (1)(D), the coastwise endorsement may be continued 
     for a period not to exceed 6 months on any terms and 
     conditions that the Secretary of Transportation may 
     prescribe.
       ``(f) For purposes of the first proviso of section 27 of 
     the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, section 2 of the Shipping Act, 
     1916, and section 12102(a) of this title, a vessel meeting 
     the criteria of subsection (d) or (e) is deemed to be owned 
     exclusively by citizens of the United States.''.

     SEC. 410. SENSE OF 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 official responsible 
     for providing the assistance, to the greatest extent 
     practicable, shall provide to each recipient of the 
     assistance a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) by the Congress.

     SEC. 411. SPECIAL SELECTION BOARDS.

       (a) Requirement.--Chapter 21 of title 14, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:
     ``Sec. 747. Special selection boards

       ``(a) The Secretary shall provide for special selection 
     boards to consider the case of any officer who is eligible 
     for promotion who--
       ``(1) was not considered for selection for promotion by a 
     selection board because of administrative error; or
       ``(2) was considered for selection for promotion by a 
     selection board but not selected because--
       ``(A) the action of the board that considered the officer 
     was contrary to law or involved a material error of fact or 
     material administrative error; or
       ``(B) the board that considered the officer did not have 
     before it for its consideration material information.
       ``(b) Not later than 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of the Coast Guard Authorization Act For Fiscal 
     Year 1996, the Secretary shall issue regulations to implement 
     this section. The regulations shall conform, as appropriate, 
     to the regulations and procedures issued by the Secretary of 
     Defense for special selection boards under section 628 of 
     title 10, United States Code.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     21 of title 14, United States Code, is amended by adding 
     after the item for section 746 the following:

``747. Special selection boards.''.
     SEC. 412. AVAILABILITY OF EXTRAJUDICIAL REMEDIES FOR DEFAULT 
                   ON PREFERRED MORTGAGE LIENS ON VESSELS.

       (a) Availability of Extrajudicial Remedies.--Section 
     31325(b) of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking 
     ``mortgage may'' and inserting ``mortgagee may'';
       (2) in paragraph (1) by--
       (A) striking ``perferred'' and inserting ``preferred''; and
       (B) striking ``; and'' and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) enforce the preferred mortgage lien or a claim for 
     the outstanding indebtedness secured by the mortgaged vessel, 
     or both, by exercising any other remedy (including an 
     extrajudicial remedy) against a documented vessel, a vessel 
     for which an application for documentation is filed under 
     chapter 121 of this title, a foreign vessel, or a mortgagor, 
     maker, comaker, or guarantor for the amount of the 
     outstanding indebtedness or any deficiency in full payment of 
     that indebtedness, if--
       ``(A) the remedy is allowed under applicable law; and
       ``(B) the exercise of the remedy will not result in a 
     violation of section 9 or 37 of the Shipping Act, 1916 (46 
     App. U.S.C. 808, 835).''.
       (b) Notice.--Section 31325 of title 46, United States Code, 
     is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f)(1) Before title to the documented vessel or vessel 
     for which an application for documentation is filed under 
     chapter 121 is transferred by an extrajudicial remedy, the 
     person exercising the remedy shall give notice of the 
     proposed transfer to the Secretary, to the mortgagee of any 
     mortgage on the vessel filed in substantial compliance with 
     section 31321 of this title before notice of the proposed 
     transfer is given to the Secretary, and to any person that 
     recorded a notice of a claim of an undischarged lien on the 
     vessel under section 31343(a) or (d) of this title before 
     notice of the proposed transfer is given to the Secretary.
       ``(2) Failure to give notice as required by this subsection 
     shall not affect the transfer of title to a vessel. However, 
     the rights of any holder of a maritime lien or a preferred 
     mortgage on the vessel shall not be affected by a transfer of 
     title by an extrajudicial remedy exercised under this 
     section, regardless of whether notice is required by this 
     subsection or given.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations 
     establishing the time and manner for providing notice under 
     this subsection.''.
       (c) Rule of Construction.--The amendments made by 
     subsections (a) and (b) may not be construed to imply that 
     remedies other than judicial remedies were not available 
     before the date of enactment of this section to enforce 
     claims for outstanding indebtedness secured by mortgaged 
     vessels.

     SEC. 413. IMPLEMENTATION OF WATER POLLUTION LAWS WITH RESPECT 
                   TO VEGETABLE OIL.

       (a) Differentiation Among Fats, Oils, and Greases.--
       (1) In general.--In issuing or enforcing a regulation, an 
     interpretation, or a guideline relating to a fat, oil, or 
     grease under a Federal law related to water pollution 
     control, the head of a Federal agency shall--
       (A) differentiate between and establish separate classes 
     for--
       (i)(I) animal fats; and
       (II) vegetable oils; and
       (ii) other oils, including petroleum oil; and
       (B) apply different standards to different classes of fat 
     and oil as provided in paragraph (2).
       (2) Considerations.--In differentiating between the classes 
     of animal fats and vegetable oils referred to in paragraph 
     (1)(A)(i) and the classes of oils described in paragraph 
     (1)(A)(ii), the head of a Federal agency shall consider 
     differences in physical, chemical, biological, and other 
     properties, and in the environmental effects, of the classes.
       (b) Financial Responsibility.--
       (1) Limits on liability.--Section 1004(a)(1) of the Oil 
     Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2704(a)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``for a tank vessel,'' and inserting ``for a tank 
     vessel carrying oil in bulk as cargo (unless the only oil 
     carried is an animal fat or vegetable oil, as those 
     [[Page H4574]] terms are defined in section 413(c) of the 
     Coast Guard Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 1996),''.
       (2) Financial responsibility.--The first sentence of 
     section 1016(a) of the Act (33 U.S.C. 2716(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``in the case of a tank vessel,'' and inserting ``in 
     the case of a tank vessel carrying oil in bulk as cargo 
     (unless the only oil carried is an animal fat or vegetable 
     oil, as those terms are defined in section 413(c) of the 
     Coast Guard Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996),''.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Animal fat.--The term ``animal fat'' means each type of 
     animal fat, oil, or grease, including fat, oil, or grease 
     from fish or a marine mammal and any fat, oil, or grease 
     referred to in section 61(a)(2) of title 13, United States 
     Code.
       (2) Vegetable oil.--The term ``vegetable oil'' means each 
     type of vegetable oil, including vegetable oil from a seed, 
     nut, or kernel and any vegetable oil referred to in section 
     61(a)(1) of title 13, United States Code.

     SEC. 414. CERTAIN INFORMATION FROM MARINE CASUALTY 
                   INVESTIGATIONS BARRED IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

       (a) In General.--Title 46, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after section 6307 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 6308. Information barred in legal proceedings

       ``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     opinion, recommendation, deliberation, or conclusion 
     contained in a report of a marine casualty investigation 
     conducted under section 6301 of this title with respect to 
     the cause of, or factors contributing to, the casualty set 
     forth in the report of the investigation is not admissible as 
     evidence or subject to discovery in any civil, 
     administrative, or State criminal proceeding arising from a 
     marine casualty, other than with the permission and consent 
     of the Secretary of Transportation, in his or her sole 
     discretion. Any employee of the United States or military 
     member of the Coast Guard investigating a marine casualty or 
     assisting in any such investigation conducted pursuant to 
     section 6301 of this title, shall not be subject to 
     deposition or other discovery, or otherwise testify or give 
     information in such proceedings relevant to a marine casualty 
     investigation, without the permission and consent of the 
     Secretary of Transportation in his or her sole discretion. In 
     exercising this discretion in cases where the United States 
     is a party, the Secretary shall not withhold permission for 
     an employee to testify solely on factual matters where the 
     information is not available elsewhere or is not obtainable 
     by other means. Nothing in this section prohibits the United 
     States from calling an employee as an expert witness to 
     testify on its behalf.
       ``(b) The information referred to in subsection (a) of this 
     section shall not be considered an admission of liability by 
     the United States or by any person referred to in those 
     conclusions or statements.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 63 of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding after the item related to section 6307 the 
     following:

``6308. Information barred in legal proceedings.''.
     SEC. 415. REPORT ON LORAN-C REQUIREMENTS.

       Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall submit a 
     report to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science and Transportation of the Senate, prepared 
     in consultation with users of the LORAN-C radionavigation 
     system, defining the future use of and funding for 
     operations, maintenance, and upgrades of the LORAN-C 
     radionavigation system. The report shall address the 
     following:
       (1) An appropriate timetable for transition from ground-
     based radionavigation technology after it is determined that 
     satellite-based technology is available as a sole means of 
     safe and efficient navigation.
       (2) The need to ensure that LORAN-C technology purchased by 
     the public before the year 2000 has a useful economic life.
       (3) The benefits of fully utilizing the compatibilities of 
     LORAN-C technology and satellite-based technology by all 
     modes of transportation.
       (4) The need for all agencies in the Department of 
     Transportation and other relevant Federal agencies to share 
     the Federal Government's costs related to LORAN-C technology.

     SEC. 416. LIMITED DOUBLE HULL EXEMPTIONS.

       Section 3703a(b) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by--
       (1) striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (2) striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(4) a vessel equipped with a double hull before August 
     12, 1992; or
       ``(5) a barge of less than 2,000 gross tons that is 
     primarily used to carry deck cargo and bulk fuel to Native 
     villages (as that term is defined in section 3 of the Alaska 
     Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601)) located on or 
     adjacent to bays or rivers above 58 degrees north 
     latitude.''.

     SEC. 417. OIL SPILL RESPONSE VESSELS.

       (a) Definition.--Section 2101 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (20a) as paragraph (20b); 
     and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (20) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(20a) `oil spill response vessel' means a vessel that is 
     designated in its certificate of inspection as such a vessel, 
     or that is adapted to respond to a discharge of oil or a 
     hazardous material.''.
       (b) Exemption From Liquid Bulk Carriage Requirements.--
     Section 3702 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) This chapter does not apply to an oil spill response 
     vessel if--
       ``(1) the vessel is used only in response-related 
     activities; or
       ``(2) the vessel is--
       ``(A) not more than 500 gross tons;
       ``(B) designated in its certificate of inspection as an oil 
     spill response vessel; and
       ``(C) engaged in response-related activities.''.
       (c) Manning.--Section 8104(p) of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(p) The Secretary may prescribe the watchstanding 
     requirements for an oil spill response vessel.''.
       (d) Minimum Number of Licensed Individuals.--Section 
     8301(e) of title 46, United States Code, is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(e) The Secretary may prescribe the minimum number of 
     licensed individuals for an oil spill response vessel.''.
       (e) Merchant Mariner Document Requirements.--Section 
     8701(a) of title 46, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of paragraph 
     (7), by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and 
     inserting ``; and'', and by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(9) the Secretary may prescribe the individuals required 
     to hold a merchant mariner's document serving onboard an oil 
     spill response vessel.''.
       (f) Exemption From Towing Vessel Requirement.--Section 8905 
     of title 46, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Section 8904 of this title does not apply to an oil 
     spill response vessel while engaged in oil spill response or 
     training activities.''.
       (g) Inspection Requirement.--Section 3301 of title 46, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(14) oil spill response vessels.''.

     SEC. 418. OFFSHORE FACILITY FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Definition of Responsible Party.--Section 1001(32)(C) 
     of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701(32)(C)) is 
     amended by striking ``applicable State law or'' and inserting 
     ``applicable State law relating to exploring for, producing, 
     or transporting oil on submerged lands on the Outer 
     Continental Shelf in accordance with a license or permit 
     issued for such purpose, or under''.
       (b) Amount of Financial Responsibility.--Section 1016(c)(1) 
     of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2716(c)(1)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Evidence of financial responsibility required.--
     Except as provided in paragraph (2), each responsible party 
     with respect to an offshore facility described in section 
     1001(32)(C) located seaward of the line of mean high tide 
     that is--
       ``(i) used for drilling for, producing, or processing oil; 
     and
       ``(ii) has the capacity to transport, store, transfer, or 
     otherwise handle more than 1,000 barrels of oil at any one 
     time,
     shall establish and maintain evidence of financial 
     responsibility in the amount required under subparagraph (B) 
     or (C), applicable.
       ``(B) Amount required generally.--Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (C), for purposes of subparagraph (A) the amount 
     of financial responsibility required is $35,000,000.
       ``(C) Greater amount.--If the President determines that an 
     amount of financial responsibility greater than the amount 
     required by subparagraph (B) is necessary for an offshore 
     facility, based on an assessment of the risk posed by the 
     facility that includes consideration of the relative 
     operational, environmental, human health, and other risks 
     posed by the quantity or quality of oil that is transported, 
     stored, transferred, or otherwise handled by the facility, 
     the amount of financial responsibility required shall not 
     exceed $150,000,000 determined by the President on the basis 
     of clear and convincing evidence that the risks posed justify 
     the greater amount.
       ``(D) Multiple facilities.--In a case in which a person is 
     responsible for more than one facility subject to this 
     subsection, evidence of financial responsibility need be 
     established only to meet the amount applicable to the 
     facility having the greatest financial responsibility 
     requirement under this subsection.
       ``(E) Guarantee method.--Except with respect of financial 
     responsibility established by the guarantee method, 
     subsection (f) shall not apply with respect to this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 419. MANNING AND WATCH REQUIREMENTS ON TOWING VESSELS ON 
                   THE GREAT LAKES.

       (a) Section 8104(c) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or permitted''; and
       (2) by inserting after ``day'' the following: ``or 
     permitted to work more than 15 hours in any 24-hour period, 
     or more than 36 hours in any 72-hour period''.
       (b) Section 8104(e) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``subsections (c) and (d)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (d)''.
       (c) Section 8104(g) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``(except a vessel to which subsection 
     (c) of this section applies)''.
     SEC. 420. LIMITATION ON APPLICATION OF CERTAIN LAWS TO LAKE 
                   TEXOMA.

       (a) Limitation.--The laws administered by the Coast Guard 
     relating to documentation or inspection of vessels or 
     licensing or documentation of vessel operators do not apply 
     to any small passenger vessel operating on Lake Texoma.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``Lake Texoma'' means the impoundment by that 
     name on the Red River, located on the border between Oklahoma 
     and Texas.
       (2) The term ``small passenger vessel'' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 2101 of title 46, United States 
     Code.
         [[Page H4575]] TITLE V--COAST GUARD REGULATORY REFORM

     SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Coast Guard Regulatory 
     Reform Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 502. 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 system

       ``(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 Transportation 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. 503. 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. 504. 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. 505. 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 
     [[Page H4576]] 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. 506. CERTIFICATE OF INSPECTION.

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

     SEC. 507. 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.''.
                   TITLE VI--DOCUMENTATION OF VESSELS
     SEC. 601. AUTHORITY TO ISSUE COASTWISE ENDORSEMENTS.

       Section 12106 of title 46, United States Code, is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) A coastwise endorsement may be issued for a vessel 
     that--
       ``(1) is less than 200 gross tons;
       ``(2) is eligible for documentation;
       ``(3) was built in the United States; and
       ``(4) was--
       ``(A) sold foreign in whole or in part; or
       ``(B) placed under foreign registry.''.

     SEC. 602. 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 Transportation may issue a certificate of 
     documentation with a coastwise endorsement for each of the 
     following vessels:
       (A) GALLANT LADY (Feadship hull number 645, approximately 
     130 feet in length).
       (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 the 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 
     section (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. 603. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR CONVERSION OF VESSEL M/V 
                   TWIN DRILL.

       Section 601(d) of Public Law 103-206 (107 Stat. 2445) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``1995'' and inserting 
     ``1996''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``12'' and inserting 
     ``24''.

     SEC. 604. DOCUMENTATION OF VESSEL RAINBOW'S END.

       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, 12107,
      and 12108 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of 
     Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation 
     with appropriate endorsements for employment in the 
     coastwise trade, Great Lakes trade, and the fisheries for 
     the vessel RAINBOW'S END (official number 1026899; hull 
     identification number MY13708C787).

     SEC. 605. DOCUMENTATION OF VESSEL GLEAM.

       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 Transportation may issue a certificate 
     of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment 
     in the coastwise trade for the vessel GLEAM (United States 
     official number 921594).
     SEC. 606. DOCUMENTATION OF VARIOUS VESSELS.

       (a) 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), 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 each of the 
     vessels listed in subsection (b).
       (b) Vessels Described.--The vessels referred to in 
     subsection (a) are the following:
       (1) ANNAPOLIS (United States official number 999008).
       (2) CHESAPEAKE (United States official number 999010).
       (3) CONSORT (United States official number 999005).
       (4) CURTIS BAY (United States official number 999007).
       (5) HAMPTON ROADS (United States official number 999009).
       (6) JAMESTOWN (United States official number 999006).
     SEC. 607. DOCUMENTATION OF 4 BARGES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant 
     Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), section 1 of the Act 
     of May 28, 1906 (46 App. U.S.C. 292), and section 12106 of 
     title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation 
     may issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate 
     endorsements for each of the vessels listed in subsection 
     (b).
       (b) Vessels Described.--The vessels referred to in 
     subsection (a) are 4 barges owned by McLean Contracting 
     Company (a corporation organized under the laws of the State 
     of Maryland) and numbered by that company as follows:
       (1) Barge 76 (official number 1030612).
       (2) Barge 77 (official number 1030613).
       (3) Barge 78 (official number 1030614).
       (4) Barge 100 (official number 1030615).
             TITLE VII--TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS

     SEC. 701. AMENDMENT OF INLAND NAVIGATION RULES.

       Section 2 of the Inland Navigational Rules Act of 1980 is 
     amended--
       (1) by amending Rule 9(e)(i) (33 U.S.C. 2009(e)(i)) to read 
     as follows:
       ``(i) In a narrow channel or fairway when overtaking, the 
     power-driven vessel intending to overtake another power-
     driven vessel shall indicate her intention by sounding the 
     appropriate signal prescribed in Rule 34(c) and take steps to 
     permit safe passing. The power-driven vessel being overtaken, 
     if in agreement, shall sound the same signal and may, if 
     specifically agreed to take steps to permit safe passing. If 
     in doubt she shall sound the danger signal prescribed in Rule 
     34(d).'';
       (2) in Rule 15(b) (33 U.S.C. 2015(b)) by inserting ``power-
     driven'' after ``Secretary, a'';
       (3) in Rule 23(a)(i) (33 U.S.C. 2023(a)(i)) after 
     ``masthead light forward''; by striking ``except that a 
     vessel of less than 20 meters in length need not exhibit this 
     light forward of amidships but shall exhibit it as far 
     forward as is practicable;'';
       (4) by amending Rule 24(f) (33 U.S.C. 2024(f)) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(f) Provided that any number of vessels being towed 
     alongside or pushed in a group shall be lighted as one 
     vessel, except as provided in paragraph (iii)--
       ``(i) a vessel being pushed ahead, not being part of a 
     composite unit, shall exhibit at the forward end, sidelights 
     and a special flashing light;
       ``(ii) a vessel being towed alongside shall exhibit a 
     sternlight and at the forward end, sidelights and a special 
     flashing light; and
       ``(iii) when vessels are towed alongside on both sides of 
     the towing vessels a stern light shall be exhibited on the 
     stern of the outboard vessel on each side of the towing 
     vessel, and a single set of sidelights as far forward and as 
     far outboard as is practicable, and a single special flashing 
     light.'';
       (5) in Rule 26 (33 U.S.C 2026)--
       (A) in each of subsections (b)(i) and (c)(i) by striking 
     ``a vessel of less than 20 meters in 
     [[Page H4577]] length may instead of this shape exhibit a 
     basket;''; and
       (B) by amending subsection (d) to read as follows:
       ``(d) The additional signals described in Annex II to these 
     Rules apply to a vessel engaged in fishing in close proximity 
     to other vessels engaged in fishing.''; and
       (6) by amending Rule 34(h) (33 U.S.C. 2034) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(h) A vessel that reaches agreement with another vessel 
     in a head-on, crossing, or overtaking situation, as for 
     example, by using the radiotelephone as prescribed by the 
     Vessel Bridge-to-Bridge Radiotelephone Act (85 Stat. 164; 33 
     U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), is not obliged to sound the whistle 
     signals prescribed by this rule, but may do so. If agreement 
     is not reached, then whistle signals shall be exchanged in a 
     timely manner and shall prevail.''.

     SEC. 702. MEASUREMENT OF VESSELS.

       Section 14104 of title 46, United States Code, is amended 
     by redesignating the existing text after the section
      heading as subsection (a) and by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(b) If a statute allows for an alternate tonnage to be 
     prescribed under this section, the Secretary may prescribe it 
     by regulation. The alternate tonnage shall, to the maximum 
     extent possible, be equivalent to the statutorily established 
     tonnage. Until an alternate tonnage is prescribed, the 
     statutorily established tonnage shall apply to vessels 
     measured under chapter 143 or chapter 145 of this title.''.

     SEC. 703. LONGSHORE AND HARBOR WORKERS COMPENSATION.

       Section 3(d)(3)(B) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' 
     Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 903(d)(3)(B)) is amended by 
     inserting after ``1,600 tons gross'' the following: ``as 
     measured under section 14502 of title 46, United States Code, 
     or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of that 
     title as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 of 
     that title''.

     SEC. 704. RADIOTELEPHONE REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 4(a)(2) of the Vessel Bridge-to-Bridge 
     Radiotelephone Act (33 U.S.C. 1203(a)(2)) is amended by 
     inserting after ``one hundred gross tons'' the following ``as 
     measured under section 14502 of title 46, United States Code, 
     or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of that 
     title as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 of 
     that title,''.

     SEC. 705. VESSEL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 4(a)(3) of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1223(a)(3)) is amended by inserting after ``300 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title''.

     SEC. 706. MERCHANT MARINE ACT, 1920.

       Section 27A of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. 
     App. 883-1), is amended by inserting after ``five hundred 
     gross tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 
     of title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title,''.

     SEC. 707. MERCHANT MARINE ACT, 1956.

       Section 2 of the Act of June 14, 1956 (46 U.S.C. App. 
     883a), is amended by inserting after ``five hundred gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title''.

     SEC. 708. MARITIME EDUCATION AND TRAINING.

       Section 1302(4)(A) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 
     U.S.C. App. 1295a(4)(a)) is amended by inserting after 
     ``1,000 gross tons or more'' the following: ``as measured 
     under section 14502 of title 46, United States Code, or an 
     alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of that title 
     as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 of that 
     title''.

     SEC. 709. GENERAL DEFINITIONS.

       Section 2101 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (13), by inserting after ``15 gross tons'' 
     the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of title 46, 
     United States Code, or an alternate tonnage measured under 
     section 14302 of that title as prescribed by the Secretary 
     under section 14104 of that title'';
       (2) in paragraph (13a), by inserting after ``3,500 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title'';
       (3) in paragraph (19), by inserting after ``500 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title'';
       (4) in paragraph (22), by inserting after ``100 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title'';
       (5) in paragraph (30)(A), by inserting after ``500 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title'';
       (6) in paragraph (32), by inserting after ``100 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title'';
       (7) in paragraph (33), by inserting after ``300 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as
      prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 of that 
     title'';
       (8) in paragraph (35), by inserting after ``100 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title''; and
       (9) in paragraph (42), by inserting after ``100 gross 
     tons'' each place it appears, the following: ``as measured 
     under section 14502 of title 46, United States Code, or an 
     alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of that title 
     as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 of that 
     title''.

     SEC. 710. AUTHORITY TO EXEMPT CERTAIN VESSELS.

       Section 2113 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4), by inserting after ``at least 100 
     gross tons but less than 300 gross tons'' the following: ``as 
     measured under section 14502 of title 46, United States Code, 
     or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of that 
     title as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 of 
     that title''; and
       (2) in paragraph (5), by inserting after ``at least 100 
     gross tons but less than 500 gross tons'' the following: ``as 
     measured under section 14502 of title 46, United States Code, 
     or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of that 
     title as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 of 
     that title''.

     SEC. 711. INSPECTION OF VESSELS.

       Section 3302 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting after ``5,000 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title'';
       (2) in subsection (c)(2), by inserting after ``500 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title'';
       (3) in subsection (c)(3), by inserting after ``500 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title'';
       (4) in subsection (c)(4)(A), by inserting after ``500 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title'';
       (5) in subsection (d)(1), by inserting after ``150 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title'';
       (6) in subsection (i)(1)(A), by inserting after ``300 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title''; and
       (7) in subsection (j), by inserting after ``15 gross tons'' 
     the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of title 46, 
     United States Code, or an alternate tonnage measured under 
     section 14302 of that title as prescribed by the Secretary 
     under section 14104 of that title''.

     SEC. 712. REGULATIONS.

       Section 3306 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (h), by inserting after ``at least 100 
     gross tons but less than 300 gross tons'' the following: ``as 
     measured under section 14502 of title 46, United States Code, 
     or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of that 
     title as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 of 
     that title''; and
       (2) in subsection (i), by inserting after ``at least 100 
     gross tons but less than 500 gross tons'' the following: ``as 
     measured under section 14502 of title 46, United States Code, 
     or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of that 
     title as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 of 
     that title''.

     SEC. 713. PENALTIES--INSPECTION OF VESSELS.

       Section 3318 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting after ``100 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title''; and
       (2) in subsection (j)(1), by inserting after ``1,600 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title''.

     SEC. 714. APPLICATION--TANK VESSELS.

       Section 3702 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting after ``500 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title'';
       (2) in subsection (c), by inserting after ``500 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title''; and
       (3) in subsection (d), by inserting after ``5,000 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 
     [[Page H4578]] 14302 of that title as prescribed by the 
     Secretary under section 14104 of that title''.
     SEC. 715. TANK VESSEL CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS.

       Section 3703a of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(2), by inserting after ``5,000 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title'';
       (2) in subsection (c)(2), by inserting after ``5,000 gross 
     tons'' each place it appears the following: ``as measured 
     under section 14502 of title 46, United States Code, or an 
     alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of that title 
     as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 of that 
     title'';
       (3) in subsection (c)(3)(A), by inserting after ``15,000 
     gross tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 
     of title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title'';
       (4) in subsection (c)(3)(B), by inserting after ``30,000 
     gross tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 
     of title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title''; and
       (5) in subsection (c)(3)(C), by inserting after ``30,000 
     gross tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 
     of title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title''.

     SEC. 716. TANKER MINIMUM STANDARDS.

       Section 3707 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting after ``10,000 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by inserting after ``10,000 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title''.

     SEC. 717. SELF-PROPELLED TANK VESSEL MINIMUM STANDARDS.

       Section 3708 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after ``10,000 gross tons'' the following: ``as 
     measured under section 14502 of title 46, United States Code, 
     or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of that 
     title as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 of 
     that title''.

     SEC. 718. DEFINITION--ABANDONMENT OF BARGES.

       Section 4701(1) of title 46, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after ``100 gross tons'' the following: ``as 
     measured under section 14502 of title 46, United States Code, 
     or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of that 
     title as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 of 
     that title''.

     SEC. 719. APPLICATION--LOAD LINES.

       Section 5102(b) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4), by inserting after ``5,000 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title'';
       (2) in paragraph (5), by inserting after ``500 gross tons'' 
     the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of title 46, 
     United States Code, or an alternate tonnage measured under 
     section 14302 of that title as prescribed by the Secretary 
     under section 14104 of that title''; and
       (3) in paragraph (10), by inserting after ``150 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title''.

     SEC. 720. LICENSING OF INDIVIDUALS.

       Section 7101(e)(3) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after ``1,600 gross tons'' the 
     following: ``as measured under section 14502 of title 46, 
     United States Code, or an alternate tonnage measured under 
     section 14302 of that title as prescribed by the Secretary 
     under section 14104 of that title''.

     SEC. 721. ABLE SEAMEN--LIMITED.

       Section 7308 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after ``100 gross tons'' the following: ``as 
     measured under section 14502 of title 46, United States Code, 
     or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of that 
     title as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 of 
     that title''.
     SEC. 722. ABLE SEAMEN--OFFSHORE SUPPLY VESSELS.

       Section 7310 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after ``500 gross tons'' the following: ``as 
     measured under section 14502 of title 46, United States Code, 
     or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of that 
     title as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 of 
     that title''.

     SEC. 723. SCALE OF EMPLOYMENT--ABLE SEAMEN.

       Section 7312 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by inserting after ``1,600 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title'';
       (2) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting after ``500 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title'';
       (3) in subsection (d), by inserting after ``500 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title'';
       (4) in subsection (f)(1), by inserting after ``5,000 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title''; and
       (5) in subsection (f)(2), by inserting after ``5,000 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title''.

     SEC. 724. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS--ENGINE DEPARTMENT.

       Section 7313(a) of title 46, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after ``100 gross tons'' the following: ``as 
     measured under section 14502 of title 46, United States Code, 
     or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of that 
     title as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 of 
     that title''.

     SEC. 725. COMPLEMENT OF INSPECTED VESSELS.

       Section 8101(h) of title 46, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after ``100 gross tons'' the following: ``as 
     measured under section 14502 of title 46, United States Code, 
     or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of that 
     title as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 of 
     that title''.

     SEC. 726. WATCHMEN.

       Section 8102(b) of title 46, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after ``100 gross tons'' the following: ``as 
     measured under section 14502 of title 46, United States Code, 
     or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of that 
     title as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 of 
     that title''.

     SEC. 727. CITIZENSHIP AND NAVAL RESERVE REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 8103(b)(3)(A) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after ``1,600 gross tons'' the 
     following: ``as measured under section 14502 of title 46, 
     United States Code, or an alternate tonnage measured under 
     section 14302 of that title as prescribed by the Secretary 
     under section 14104 of that title''.

     SEC. 728. WATCHES.

       Section 8104 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by inserting after ``100 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title'';
       (2) in subsection (d), by inserting after ``100 gross 
     tons'' and after ``5,000 gross tons'' the following: ``as 
     measured under section 14502 of title 46, United States Code, 
     or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of that 
     title as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 of 
     that title'';
       (3) in subsection (l)(1), by inserting after ``1,600 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title'';
       (4) in subsection (m)(1), by inserting after ``1,600 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title'';
       (5) in subsection (o)(1), by inserting after ``500 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title''; and
       (6) in subsection (o)(2), by inserting after ``500 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title''.

     SEC. 729. MINIMUM NUMBER OF LICENSED INDIVIDUALS.

       Section 8301 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2), by inserting after ``1,000 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(3), by inserting after ``at least 200 
     gross tons but less than 1,000 gross tons'' the following: 
     ``as measured under section 14502 of title 46, United States 
     Code, or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of 
     that title as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 
     of that title'';
       (3) in subsection (a)(4), by inserting after ``at least 100 
     gross tons but less than 200 gross tons'' the following: ``as 
     measured under section 14502 of title 46, United States Code, 
     or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of that 
     title as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 of 
     that title'';
       (4) in subsection (a)(5), by inserting after ``300 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title''; and
       (5) in subsection (b), by inserting after ``200 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title''.
     [[Page H4579]] SEC. 730. OFFICERS' COMPETENCY CERTIFICATES 
                   CONVENTION.

       Section 8304(b)(4) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after ``200 gross tons'' the following: 
     ``as measured under section 14502 of title 46, United States 
     Code, or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of 
     that title as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 
     of that title''.

     SEC. 731. MERCHANT MARINERS' DOCUMENTS REQUIRED.

       Section 8701 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting after ``100 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title''; and
       (2) in subsection (a)(6), by inserting after ``1,600 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title''.

     SEC. 732. CERTAIN CREW REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 8702 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting after ``100 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title''; and
       (2) in subsection (a)(6), by inserting after ``1,600 gross 
     tons'' the following: ``as measured under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, or an alternate tonnage 
     measured under section 14302 of that title as prescribed by 
     the Secretary under section 14104 of that title''.
     SEC. 733. FREIGHT VESSELS.

       Section 8901 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after ``100 gross tons'' the following: ``as 
     measured under section 14502 of title 46, United States Code, 
     or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of that 
     title as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 of 
     that title''.

     SEC. 734. EXEMPTIONS.

       Section 8905(b) of title 46, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after ``200 gross tons'' the following: ``as 
     measured under section 14502 of title 46, United States Code, 
     or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of that 
     title as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 of 
     that title''.

     SEC. 735. UNITED STATES REGISTERED PILOT SERVICE.

       Section 9303(a)(2) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after ``4,000 gross tons'' the 
     following: ``as measured under section 14502 of title 46, 
     United States Code, or an alternate tonnage measured under 
     section 14302 of that title as prescribed by the Secretary 
     under section 14104 of that title''.

     SEC. 736. DEFINITIONS--MERCHANT SEAMEN PROTECTION.

       Section 10101(4)(B) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after ``1,600 gross tons'' the 
     following: ``as measured under section 14502 of title 46, 
     United States Code, or an alternate tonnage measured under 
     section 14302 of that title as prescribed by the Secretary 
     under section 14104 of that title''.

     SEC. 737. APPLICATION--FOREIGN AND INTERCOASTAL VOYAGES.

       Section 10301(a)(2) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after ``75 gross tons'' the following: 
     ``as measured under section 14502 of title 46, United States 
     Code, or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of 
     that title as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 
     of that title''.

     SEC. 738. APPLICATION--COASTWISE VOYAGES.

       Section 10501(a) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after ``50 gross tons'' the following: 
     ``as measured under section 14502 of title 46, United States 
     Code, or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of 
     that title as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 
     of that title''.

     SEC. 739. FISHING AGREEMENTS.

       Section 10601(a)(1) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after ``20 gross tons'' the following: 
     ``as measured under section 14502 of title 46, United States 
     Code, or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of 
     that title as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 
     of that title''.

     SEC. 740. ACCOMMODATIONS FOR SEAMEN.

       Section 11101(a) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after ``100 gross tons'' the following: 
     ``as measured under section 14502 of title 46, United States 
     Code, or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of 
     that title as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 
     of that title''.

     SEC. 741. MEDICINE CHESTS.

       Section 11102(a) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after ``75 gross tons'' the following: 
     ``as measured under section 14502 of title 46, United States 
     Code, or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of 
     that title as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 
     of that title''.
     SEC. 742. LOGBOOK AND ENTRY REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 11301(a)(2) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after ``100 gross tons'' the following: 
     ``as measured under section 14502 of title 46, United States 
     Code, or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of 
     that title as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 
     of that title''.

     SEC. 743. COASTWISE ENDORSEMENTS.

       Section 12106(c)(1) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``two hundred gross tons'' and inserting 
     ``200 gross tons as measured under section 14502 of title 46, 
     United States Code, or an alternate tonnage measured under 
     section 14302 of that title as prescribed by the Secretary 
     under section 14104 of that title''.

     SEC. 744. FISHERY ENDORSEMENTS.

       Section 12108(c)(1) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``two hundred gross tons'' and inserting 
     ``200 gross tons as measured under section 14502 of title 46, 
     United States Code, or an alternate tonnage measured under 
     section 14302 of that title as prescribed by the Secretary 
     under section 14104 of that title''.

     SEC. 745. 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. 746. REPEAL OF GREAT LAKES ENDORSEMENTS.

       (a) Repeal.--Section 12107 of title 46, United States Code, 
     is repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The analysis at the beginning of chapter 121 of title 
     46, United States Code, is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 12107.
       (2) Section 12101(b)(3) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     repealed.
       (3) Section 4370(a) of the Revised Statutes of the United 
     States (46 App. U.S.C. 316(a)) is amended by striking ``or 
     12107''.
       (4) Section 2793 of the Revised Statutes of the United 
     States (46 App. U.S.C. 111, 123) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``coastwise, Great Lakes endorsement'' and 
     all that follows through ``foreign ports,'' and inserting 
     ``registry endorsement, engaged in foreign trade on the Great 
     Lakes or their tributary or connecting waters in trade with 
     Canada,''; and
       (B) by striking ``, as if from or to foreign ports''.

     SEC. 747. CONVENTION TONNAGE FOR LICENSES, CERTIFICATES, AND 
                   DOCUMENTS.

       (a) Authority To Use Convention Tonnage.--Chapter 75 of 
     title 46, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``Sec. 7506. Convention tonnage for licenses, certificates, 
       and documents

       ``Notwithstanding any provision of section 14302(c) or 
     14305 of this title, the Secretary may--
       ``(1) evaluate the service of an individual who is applying 
     for a license, a certificate of registry, or a merchant 
     mariner's document by using the tonnage as measured under 
     chapter 143 of this title for the vessels on which that 
     service was acquired, and
       ``(2) issue the license, certificate, or document based on 
     that service.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis to chapter 75 of 
     title 46, United States Code, is amended by adding a new item 
     as follows:

``7506. Convention tonnage for licenses, certificates, and 
              documents.''.
              TITLE VIII--COAST GUARD AUXILIARY AMENDMENTS

     SEC. 801. ADMINISTRATION OF THE COAST GUARD AUXILIARY.

       (a) In General.--Section 821 of title 14, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 821. Administration of the Coast Guard Auxiliary

       ``(a) The Coast Guard Auxiliary is a nonmilitary 
     organization administered by the Commandant under the 
     direction of the Secretary. For command, control, and 
     administrative purposes, the Auxiliary shall include such 
     organizational elements and units as are approved by the 
     Commandant, including but not limited to, a national board 
     and staff (to be known as the `Auxiliary headquarters unit'), 
     districts, regions, divisions, flotillas, and other 
     organizational elements and units. The Auxiliary organization 
     and its officers shall have such rights, privileges, powers, 
     and duties as may be granted to them by the Commandant, 
     consistent with this title and other applicable provisions of 
     law. The Commandant may delegate to officers of the Auxiliary 
     the authority vested in the Commandant by this section, in 
     the manner and to the extent the Commandant considers 
     necessary or appropriate for the functioning, organization, 
     and internal administration of the Auxiliary.
       ``(b) Each organizational element or unit of the Coast 
     Guard Auxiliary organization (but excluding any corporation 
     formed by an organizational element or unit of the Auxiliary 
     under subsection (c) of this section), shall, except when 
     acting outside the scope of section 822, at all times be 
     deemed to be an instrumentality of the United States, for 
     purposes of--
       ``(1) chapter 26 of title 28 (popularly known as the 
     Federal Tort Claims Act);
       ``(2) section 2733 of title 10 (popularly known as the 
     Military Claims Act);
       ``(3) the Act of March 3, 1925 (46 App. U.S.C. 781-790; 
     popularly known as the Public Vessels Act);
       ``(4) the Act of March 9, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 741-752; 
     popularly known as the Suits in Admiralty Act);
       ``(5) the Act of June 19, 1948 (46 App. U.S.C. 740; 
     popularly known as the Admiralty Extension Act); and
       ``(6) other matters related to noncontractual civil 
     liability.
       ``(c) The national board of the Auxiliary, and any 
     Auxiliary district or region, may form a corporation under 
     State law in accordance with policies established by the 
     Commandant.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 23 of title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 821, and 
     inserting the following:

``821. Administration of the Coast Guard Auxiliary.''.
     SEC. 802. PURPOSE OF THE COAST GUARD AUXILIARY.

       (a) In General.--Section 822 of title 14, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:
     [[Page H4580]] ``Sec. 822. Purpose of the Coast Guard 
       Auxiliary

       ``The purpose of the Auxiliary is to assist the Coast Guard 
     as authorized by the Commandant, in performing any Coast 
     Guard function, power, duty, role, mission, or operation 
     authorized by law.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 23 of title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 822 and 
     inserting the following:

``822. Purpose of the Coast Guard Auxiliary.''.
     SEC. 803. MEMBERS OF THE AUXILIARY; STATUS.

       (a) In General.--Section 823 of title 14, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in the heading by adding ``, and status'' after 
     ``enrollments'';
       (2) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``The Auxiliary''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(b) A member of the Coast Guard Auxiliary is not a 
     Federal employee except for the following purposes:
       ``(1) Chapter 26 of title 28 (popularly known as the 
     Federal Tort Claims Act).
       ``(2) Section 2733 of title 10 (popularly known as the 
     Military Claims Act).
       ``(3) The Act of March 3, 1925 (46 App. U.S.C. 781-790; 
     popularly known as the Public Vessel Act).
       ``(4) The Act of March 9, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 741-752; 
     popularly known as the Suits in Admiralty Act).
       ``(5) The Act of June 19, 1948 (46 App. U.S.C. 740; 
     popularly known as the Admiralty Extension Act).
       ``(6) Other matters related to noncontractual civil 
     liability.
       ``(7) Compensation for work injuries under chapter 81 of 
     title 5.
       ``(8) The resolution of claims relating to damage to or 
     loss of personal property of the member incident to service 
     under section 3721 of title 31 (popularly known as the 
     Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act of 
     1964).
       ``(c) A member of the Auxiliary, while assigned to duty, 
     shall be deemed to be a person acting under an officer of the 
     United States or an agency thereof for purposes of section 
     1442(a)(1) of title 28.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 23 of title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 823 and 
     inserting the following:

``823. Eligibility, enrollments, and status.''.
     SEC. 804. ASSIGNMENT AND PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES.

       (a) Travel and Subsistence Expense.--Section 830(a) of 
     title 14, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``specific''.
       (b) Assignment of General Duties.--Section 831 of title 14, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``specific'' each 
     place it appears.
       (c) Benefits for Injury or Death.--Section 832 of title 14, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``specific'' each 
     place it appears.

     SEC. 805. COOPERATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES, STATES, 
                   TERRITORIES, AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 141 of title 14, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 141. Cooperation with other agencies, States, 
       territories, and political subdivisions'';

       (2) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by inserting 
     after ``personnel and facilities'' the following: 
     ``(including members of the Auxiliary and facilities governed 
     under chapter 23)''; and
       (3) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following 
     new sentence: ``The Commandant may prescribe conditions, 
     including reimbursement, under which personnel and facilities 
     may be provided under this subsection.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 7 of title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 141 and 
     inserting the following:

``141. Cooperation with other agencies, States, territories, and 
              political subdivisions.''.
     SEC. 806. VESSEL DEEMED PUBLIC VESSEL.
       Section 827 of title 14, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 827. Vessel deemed public vessel

       ``While assigned to authorized Coast Guard duty, any 
     motorboat or yacht shall be deemed to be a public vessel of 
     the United States and a vessel of the Coast Guard within the 
     meaning of sections 646 and 647 of this title and other 
     applicable provisions of law.''.

     SEC. 807. AIRCRAFT DEEMED PUBLIC AIRCRAFT.

       Section 828 of title 14, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 828. Aircraft deemed public aircraft

       ``While assigned to authorized Coast Guard duty, any 
     aircraft shall be deemed to be a Coast Guard aircraft, a 
     public vessel of the United States, and a vessel of the Coast 
     Guard within the meaning of sections 646 and 647 of this 
     title and other applicable provisions of law. Subject to the 
     provisions of sections 823a and 831 of this title, while 
     assigned to duty, qualified Auxiliary pilots shall be deemed 
     to be Coast Guard pilots.''.

     SEC. 808. DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN MATERIAL.

       Section 641(a) of title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``with or without charge,'' the 
     following: ``to the Coast Guard Auxiliary, including any 
     incorporated unit thereof,''; and
       (2) by striking ``to any incorporated unit of the Coast 
     Guard Auxiliary,''.

  The text of the remainder of the committee amendment in the nature of 
a substitute is as follows:


                     amendment offered by mr. coble

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Coble: On page 5, line 20, strike 
     the period and add ``to carry out the purposes of section 
     1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.''.
       At the end of title III (page 18, after line 12) add the 
     following new section:

     SEC.   . EXTENSION OF TOWING SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       Subsection (e) of the Act to establish a Towing Safety 
     Advisory Committee in the Department of Transportation (33 
     U.S.C. 1231a(e)), is amended by striking ``September 30, 
     1995'' and inserting ``October 1, 2000''.
       On page 25, strike line 9 through page 28, line 7, and 
     insert the following:

     SEC. 409. VESSEL FINANCING.

       (a) Documentation Citizen Eligible Mortgagee.--Section 
     31322(a)(1)(D) of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of 31322(a)(1)(D)(v) and 
     inserting ``or'' at the end of 31322(a)(1)(D)(vi); and
       (2) by adding at the end a new subparagraph as follows:
       ``(vii) a person eligible to own a documented vessel under 
     chapter 121 of this title.''
       (b) Amendment to Trustee Restrictions.--Section 31328(a) of 
     title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of 31328(a)(3) and 
     inserting ``or'' at the end of 31328(a)(4); and
       (2) by adding at the end a new subparagraph as follows:
       ``(5) is a person eligible to own a documented vessel under 
     chapter 121 of this title.''
       (c) Lease Financing.--Section 12106 of title 46, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsections:
       ``(e)(1) A certificate of documentation for a vessel may be 
     endorsed with a coastwise endorsement if--
       ``(A) the vessel is eligible for documentation under 
     section 12102;
       ``(B) the person that owns the vessel, a parent entity of 
     that person or a subsidiary of a parent entity of that 
     person, is engaged in lease financing;
       ``(C) the vessel is under a demise charter to a person 
     qualifying as a citizen of the United States for engaging in 
     the coastwise trade under section 2 of the Shipping Act, 
     1916;
       ``(D) the demise charter is for--
       ``(i) a period of at least 3 years; or
       ``(ii) a shorter period as may be prescribed by the 
     Secretary; and
       ``(E) the vessel is otherwise qualified under this section 
     to be employed in the coastwise trade.
       ``(2) Upon default by a bareboat charterer of a demise 
     charter required under paragraph (1)(D), the coastwise 
     endorsement of the vessel may, in the sole discretion of the 
     Secretary, be continued after the termination for default of 
     the demise charter for a period not to exceed 6 months on 
     terms and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe.
       ``(3) For purposes of section 2 of the Shipping Act, 1916, 
     and section 12102(a) of this title, a vessel meeting the 
     criteria of this subsection is deemed to be owned exclusively 
     by citizens of the United States.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 9(c) of the Shipping 
     Act, 1916, as amended (46 App. U.S.C. 808(c)) is amended by 
     inserting ``12106(e),'' after the word ``sections'' and 
     before 31322(a)(1)(D).
       On page 33, strike lines 11 through page 34, line 2 and 
     insert the following:
       ``(b) Financing Responsibility.--
       ``(1) Limits on liability.--Section 1004(a)(1) of the Oil 
     Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2704(a)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``for a tank vessel,'' and inserting ``for a tank 
     vessel carrying oil in bulk as cargo or cargo residue (except 
     a tank vessel on which the only oil carried is an animal fat 
     or vegetable oil, as those terms are defined in section 
     413(c) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     1996)''.
       ``(2) Financial responsibility.--The first sentence of 
     section 1016(a) of the Act (33 U.S.C. 2716(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``, in the case of a tank vessel, the responsible 
     party could be subject under section 1004 (a)(1) or (d) of 
     this Act, or to which, in the case of any other vessel, the 
     responsible party could be subjected under section 1004 
     (a)(2) or (d)'' and inserting ``the responsible party could 
     be subjected under section 1004 (a) or (d) of this Act''.''
       On page 37, line 14, strike ``or''.
       On page 37, line 20, strike ``latitude.''.'' and insert 
     ``latitude;''.
       On page 37, after line 20, insert the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(6) a vessel in the National Defense Reserve Fleet 
     pursuant to section 11 of the Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946 
     (50 App. U.S.C. 1744).''.
       On page 40, line 18, strike ``the line of mean'' through 
     line 19, and insert ``the line of ordinary low water along 
     that portion of the coast that is in direct contact with the 
     open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland 
     waters that is--''.
       On page 40, line 20, strike ``drilling for, producing, or'' 
     through line 21, and insert ``exploring for, producing, or 
     transporting oil' and''.
       [[Page H4581]] At the end of title IV (page 43, after line 
     13) add the following new sections:

     SEC.  . LIMITATIONS ON CONSOLIDATION OR RELOCATION OF HOUSTON 
                   AND GALVESTON MARINE SAFETY OFFICES.

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

     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.

     SEC.  . 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.--Any conveyance of property 
     pursuant to this section shall be subject to the condition 
     that all right, title, and interest in the Montauk Light 
     Station shall immediately revert to the United States if the 
     Montauk Light Station 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.
       (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) Definitions.--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.   . CONVEYANCE OF CAPE ANN LIGHTHOUSE, THACHERS ISLAND, 
                   MASSACHUSETTS.
       (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 with 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.   . AMENDMENTS TO JOHNSON ACT.

       For purposes of section 5(b)(1)(A) of the Act of January 2, 
     1951 (15 U.S.C. 1175(b)(1)(A)), commonly known as the Johnson 
     Act, a vessel on a voyage that begins in the territorial 
     jurisdiction of the State of Indiana and that does not leave 
     the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Indiana shall be 
     considered to be a vessel that is not within the boundaries 
     of any State or possession of the United States.

     SEC.   . TRANSFER OF COAST GUARD PROPERTY IN GOSNOLD, 
                   MASSACHUSETTS.

       (a) Conveyance Requirement.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation may convey to the town of Gosnold, 
     Massachusetts, 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 ``United States Coast Guard Cuttyhunk 
     Boathouse and Wharf'', as described in subsection (c).
       (b) Conditions.--Any conveyance of property under 
     subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that the 
     Coast Guard shall retain in perpetuity and at no cost--
       (1) the right of access to, over, and through the 
     boathouse, wharf, and land comprising the property at all 
     times for the purpose of berthing vessels, including vessels 
     belonging to members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary; and
       (2) the right of ingress to and egress from the property 
     for purposes of access to Coast Guard facilities and 
     performance of Coast Guard functions.
       (c) Property Described.--The property referred to in 
     subsection (a) is real property located in the town of 
     Gosnold, Massachusetts (including all buildings, structures, 
     equipment, and other improvements), as determined by the 
     Secretary of Transportation.

     SEC.    . TRANSFER OF COAST GUARD PROPERTY IN NEW SHOREHARM, 
                   RHODE ISLAND.

       (a) Requirement.--The Secretary of Transportation (or any 
     other official having control over the property described in 
     subsection (b)) shall expeditiously convey to the town of New 
     Shoreham, Rhode Island, without consideration, all right, 
     title, and interest of the United States in and to the 
     property known as the United States Coast Guard Station Block 
     Island, as described in subsection (b), subject to all 
     easements and 
     [[Page H4582]] other interest in the property held by any 
     other person.
       (b) Property Described.--The property referred to in 
     subsection (a) is real property (including buildings and 
     improvements) located on the west side of Block Island, Rhode 
     Island, at the entrance to the Great Salt Pond and referred 
     to in the books of the Tax Assessor of the town of New 
     Shoreham, Rhode Island, as lots 10 and 12, comprising 
     approximately 10.7 acres.
       (c) Revolutionary Interest.--In addition to any term or 
     condition established pursuant to subsection (a), any 
     conveyance of property under 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, ceases to 
     be used by the town of New Shoreham, Rhode Island.
       (d) Indemnification for Preexisting Environmental 
     Liabilities.--Notwithstanding any conveyance of property 
     under this section, after such conveyance the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall indemnify the town of New Shoreham, 
     Rhode Island, for any environmental liability arising from 
     the property, that existed before the date of the conveyance.

     SEC.    . VESSEL DEEMED TO BE A RECREATIONAL VESSEL.

       The vessel, an approximately 96 meter twin screw motor 
     yacht for which construction commenced in October 1993, (to 
     be named the LIMITLESS) is deemed to be a recreational vessel 
     under chapter 43 of title 46, United States Code.

     SEC.    . REQUIREMENT FOR PROCUREMENT OF BUOY CHAIN.

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

     Sec. 96. Procurement of buoy chain

       ``(a) The Coast Guard may not procure buoy chain--
       ``(1) that is not manufactured in the United States; or
       ``(2) substantially all of the components of which are not 
     produced or manufactured in the United States.
       ``(b) For purposes of subsection (a)(2), substantially all 
     of the components of a buoy chain shall be considered to be 
     produced or manufactured in the United States if the 
     aggregate cost of the components thereof which are produced 
     or manufactured in the United States is greater than the 
     aggregate cost of the components thereof which are produced 
     or manufactured outside the United States.
       ``(c) In this section--
       ``(1) the term `buoy chain' means any chain, cable, or 
     other device that is--
       ``(A) used to hold in place, by attachment to the bottom of 
     a body of water, a floating aid to navigation; and
       ``(B) not more than 4 inches in diameter; and
       ``(2) the term `manufacture' includes cutting, heat 
     treating, quality control, welding (including the forging and 
     shot blasting process), and testing.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--
       The table of sections for chapter 5 of title 14, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``96. Procurement of buoy chain''.
     SEC.     . CRUISE VESSEL TORT REFORM.

       (a) Section 4283 of the Revised Statutes of the United 
     States (46 App. 183), is amended by adding a new subsection 
     (g) to read as follows:
       ``(g) In a suit by any person in which a shipowner, 
     operator, or employer of a crew member is claimed to have 
     direct or vicarious liability for medical malpractice or 
     other tortious conduct occurring at a shoreside facility, or 
     in which the damages sought are alleged to result from the 
     referral to or treatment by any shoreside doctor, hospital, 
     medical facility or other facility or other health care 
     provider, the shipowner, operator or employer shall be 
     entitled to rely upon any and all statutory limitations of 
     liability applicable to the doctor, hospital, medical 
     facility or other health care provider in the state in which 
     the shoreside medical care was provided''.
       (b) Section 4283b of the Revised Statutes of the United 
     States (46 App. 183c) is amended by adding a new subsection 
     to read as follows:
       ``(b) Subsection (a) shall not prohibit provisions or 
     limitations in contracts, agreements, or ticket conditions of 
     carriage with passengers which relieve a manager, agent, 
     master, owner or operator of a vessel from liability for 
     infliction of emotional distress, mental suffering or 
     psychological injury so long as such provisions or 
     limitations do not limit liability if the emotional distress, 
     mental suffering or psychological injury was--
       ``(1) the result of substantial physical injury to the 
     claimant caused by the negligence or fault of the manager, 
     agent, master, owner or operator; or
       ``(2) the result of the claimant having been at actual risk 
     of substantial physical injury, which risk was caused by the 
     negligence or fault of the manager, agent, master, owner or 
     operator; or
       ``(3) intentionally inflicted by the manager, agent, 
     master, owner or operator''.
       (c) Section 20 of chapter 153 of the Act of March 4, 1915 
     (46 App. 688) is amended by adding a new subsection to read 
     as follows:
       ``(c) Limitation for certain aliens in case of contractual 
     alternative forum.
       ``(1) No action may be maintained under subsection (a) or 
     under any other maritime law of the United States for 
     maintenance and cure or for damages for the injury or death 
     of a person who was not a citizen or permanent legal resident 
     alien of the United States at the time of the incident giving 
     rise to the action, if the incident giving rise to the action 
     occurred while the person was employed on board a vessel 
     documented other than under the laws of the United States, 
     which vessel was owned by an entity organized other than 
     under the laws of the United States or by a person who is not 
     a citizen or permanent legal resident alien.
       ``(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) shall only apply if--
       ``(A) the incident giving rise to the action occurred while 
     the person bringing the action was a party to a contract of 
     employment or was subject to a collective bargaining 
     agreement which, by its terms, provided for an exclusive 
     forum for resolution of all such disputes or actions in a 
     nation other than the United States, a remedy is available to 
     the person under the laws of that nation, and the party 
     seeking to dismiss an action under paragraph (1) is willing 
     to stipulate to jurisdiction under the laws of such nation as 
     to such incident; or
       ``(B) a remedy is available to the person bringing the 
     action under the laws of the nation in which the person 
     maintained citizenship or permanent residency at the time of 
     the incident giving rise to the action and the party seeking 
     to dismiss an action under paragraph (1) is willing to 
     stipulate to jurisdiction under the laws of such nation as to 
     such incident.
       ``(3) The provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection 
     shall not be interpreted to require a court in the United 
     States to accept jurisdiction of any actions''.
       On page 59, after line 18k add the following new 
     paragraphs:
       (7) 2 barges owned by Roen Salvage (a corporation organized 
     under the laws of the State of Wisconsin) and numbered by 
     that company as barge 103 and barge 203.
       (8) RATTLESNAKE (Canadian registry official number 802702).
       (9) CAROLYN (Tennessee State registration number TN1765C).
       (10) SMALLEY (6808 Amphibious Dredge, Florida State 
     registration number FL1855FF).
       (11) BEULA LEE (United States official number 928211).
       (12) FINESSE (Florida State official number 7148HA).
       (13) WESTEJORD (Hull Identification Number X-53-109).
       (14) MAGIC CARPET (United States official number 278971).
       (15) AURA (United States official number 1027807).
       (16) ABORIGINAL (United States official number 942118).
       (17) ISABELLE (United States official number 600655).
       (18) 3 barges owned by the Harbor Marine Corporation (a 
     corporation organized under the laws of the State of Rhode 
     Island) and referred to by that company as Harbor 221, Harbor 
     223, and Gene Elizabeth.
       (19) SHAMROCK V (United States official number 900936).
       (20) ENDEAVOUR (United States official number 947869).
       (21) CHRISSY (State of Maine registration number 4778B).
       (22) EAGLE MAR (United States official number 575349).
       At the end of title VI (page 60, after line 11) add the 
     following new sections:

     SEC.   . LIMITED WAIVER FOR ENCHANTED ISLE AND ENCHANTED 
                   SEAS.

       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), section 12106 of title 46, United States Code, 
     section 506 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 
     1156), and any agreement with the United States Government, 
     the Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of 
     documentation with a coastwise endorsement for the vessels 
     ENCHANTED ISLE (Panamanian official number 14087-84B), and 
     ENCHANTED SEAS (Panamanian official number 14064-84D), except 
     that the vessels may not operate between or among islands in 
     the State of Hawaii.

     SEC.   . LIMITED WAIVER FOR MV PLATTE.

       Notwithstanding any other law or any agreement with the 
     United States Government, the vessel MV PLATTE (ex-SPIRIT OF 
     TEXAS) (United States official number 653210) may be sold to 
     a person that is not a citizen of the United States and 
     transferred to or placed under a foreign registry.
  Mr. COBLE (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 
North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment contains many 
noncontroversial, technical and clarifying changes to H.R. 1361. The 
amendment also extends the termination date of the Towing Safety 
Advisory Committee until October 1, the year 2000. Expressing the sense 
of Congress on Coast Guard funding conveys several Coast Guard 
lighthouses and other Coast Guard property to local communities and 
provides many waivers of vessel 
[[Page H4583]] documentation restrictions. This amendment was developed 
and agreed to on a bipartisan basis, and I urge the Members to support 
it.
                              {time}  1545

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we have 
examined this amendment, and we support it. We urge it be passed 
without controversy.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a series of letters 
between the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure and the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means:

         Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of 
           Representatives,
                                      Washington, DC, May 9, 1995.
     Hon. Bill Archer,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC.
       Dear Bill: I am writing in response to your letter of May 
     9, 1995 regarding consideration of H.R. 1361, the Coast Guard 
     Authorization Act for FY 1996.
       As indicated in your letter, we are agreeing to offer a 
     technical amendment on the floor to clarify that the Coast 
     Guard expenditures authorized in Section 101 of H.R. 1361 
     that are derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund are 
     specifically limited to carry out the purposes of Section 
     1012(a)(5) of the Pollution Act of 1990.
       I understand that this addresses the jurisdictional 
     concerns of the Committee on Ways and Means. Thank you for 
     your assistance and cooperation in this matter.
       With warm regards, I remain.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Bud Shuster,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____

                                      Committee on Ways and Means,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                      Washington, DC, May 9, 1995.
     Hon. Bud Shuster,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Shuster: I am writing you regarding your 
     Committee's consideration of H.R. 1361, the Coast Guard 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. I want to thank you 
     for your assistance in clarifying certain jurisdictional 
     issues involving this legislation.
       Specifically, section 101 of H.R. 1361 would authorize 
     expenditures for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 1996, 
     including funds derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust 
     Fund for (1) operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard; 
     (2) acquisition, construction, rebuilding, and improvement of 
     aids to navigation, shore and offshore facilities, vessels, 
     and aircraft, including equipment related thereto; and (3) 
     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, and enforcement of laws and 
     treaties, ice operations, oceanographic research, and defense 
     readiness.
       As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has 
     jurisdiction over the expenditure purposes of the Oil Spill 
     Liability Trust Fund, as set forth in section 9509 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Section 9509(c) 
     provides that amounts in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 
     shall be available, as provided in appropriation Acts or 
     section 6002(b) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, only for 
     purposes of making certain enumerated expenditures related to 
     oil spills or discharges, including ``the payment of removal 
     costs and other cost, expenses, claims, and damages referred 
     to in section 1012 of such Act''.
       I want to thank you for agreeing to offer a technical 
     amendment on the Floor with language clarifying that the 
     Coast Guard expenditures authorized in section 101 of H.R. 
     1361 derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund are 
     specifically limited ``to carry out the purposes of section 
     1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990'', as referred to 
     in Code section 9509. This amendment, if passed, should 
     address the jurisdictional concerns of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means.
       I understand that you would inform me if any further 
     legislative changes concerning the Oil Spill Liability Trust 
     Fund are contemplated during subsequent consideration of H.R. 
     1361. I also understand that you will insert copies of our 
     exchange of correspondence in the Record during Floor 
     consideration of H.R. 1361. Based on this understanding, I do 
     not believe any action by the Committee on Ways and Means is 
     required at this time.
       Thank you again for your assistance and cooperation in this 
     matter. With best personal regards,
           Sincerely,
                                                      Bill Archer,
                                                         Chairman.

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble].
  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: Strike Sec. 104 and 
     insert in lieu thereof:

     SEC. 104. PROHIBITION ON SMALL BOAT STATION CLOSURES.

       (a) The Secretary may not use amounts appropriated under 
     the authority of this Act to close any multimission small 
     boat station.
       (b) The Secretary may implement management efficiencies 
     within the small boat unit system, such as modifying the 
     operational posture of the units or reallocating resources as 
     necessary to ensure the safety of the maritime public, 
     provided that there are adequate active duty and reserve 
     Coast Guard personnel to perform search and rescue missions 
     at existing small boat units.

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, the bill has a provision in it which in 
effect terminates and closes 23 multi-mission small boat stations. No 
one has greater respect for the chairman of this committee, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], than myself and the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble]. I think this is the one 
element of the bill that we should change on the floor.
  You have a number of amendments that are going to follow this and try 
and put some gingerbread and criteria on this closing. But in essence 
the Coast Guard has already determined they shall be closed, and all we 
are doing here is political window dressing.
  The decision today is do we close 23 stations and save $3 million, 
roll the dice, or do we in fact say as a policy our mission is safety, 
not dollars, and the last time the Congress of the United States 
allowed bases to be closed, five people lost their lives off the shore 
of Oregon.
  Now, you hear all about these big high class helicopters and all 
these radar evading planes. Quite frankly, I do not buy it. When there 
are winds of 65 miles per hour and someone is out at sea, they are not 
going to be seeing no big chopper come in for them. You know it and I 
know it.
  The bill says, and this is what would become the law, none of the 
funds authorized to be appropriated under this act may be used to close 
Coast Guard multi-mission small boat stations, unless the Secretary of 
Transportation determines, the Secretary determines, that maritime 
safety will not be diminished by these closures.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an after the fact bit of language. The Coast 
Guard has already determined to close them. The Secretary of 
Transportation is in agreement to close them. These bases are going to 
be closed.
  The Coast Guard admits there will be a loss of life, at least one 
every 12 years, in these respective stations. They admit to it. The 
Traficant amendment is very simple and to the point: The Coast Guard is 
prohibited from closing. The Congress has set a policy; lives at stake 
are the policies of the Congress. That is the mandate we give to the 
Coast Guard.
  Now, we could cover it with a lot of different words, but, yes, the 
Traficant amendment does say the Congress tells the Coast Guard you 
cannot close them, because we are not satisfied that we can adequately 
stop loss of life. If that is not our mission, what is?
  But the Traficant amendment would allow the Coast Guard to implement 
management efficiencies within that system. There can be the transfer 
of resources. There can be the development of other strategies. But 
those small boat stations would be incorporated with active personnel 
into that strategy to ensure that along with these fancy helicopters, 
there is going to be good old Coast Guard personnel, trained to 
interact with local volunteers.
  If these stations are closed, no matter who speaks to the contrary, 
even by the Coast Guard's own admission, lives will be lost. What is a 
life worth, Congress? I do not know anymore.
  For each small boat station the Coast Guard's own analysis states 
there will be an additional life lost every 12 years at each small boat 
station. Whose constituent is it going to be this year? What if we have 
a real bad weather year? How many do we lose, folks?
  Hey, I am willing to cut the budget, but this is not cutting the 
budget. This is a commonsense approach that I cannot believe that we 
are here debating.
  The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] has noted here to the 
Congress, and I want to commend him on his leadership, and I can 
understand his passion, in 1988 the Coast Guard closed some small boat 
stations off of Oregon, 
[[Page H4584]] and they lost five lives in 3 months. I am asking that 
we review this carefully before we in fact close these stations. I ask 
for your support.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments from my good friend, the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio, and I wish we could go through life 
and never have to close a Coast Guard station.
  Mr. Chairman, I told this story, you all bear with me, in the 
committee, but I think it is pertinent. Coast Guard stations, where we 
used to call them lifeboat stations in the old days, the old salts, 
small boat stations now, but they have a way of becoming very 
personally involved in the communities where they are located, 
particularly sparsely settled communities. Coast Guard stations become 
not unlike churches, schools, the country store, the volunteer fire 
department, and the communities involved warmly embrace them.
  I was having an evening meal in the home of a retired Coast Guardsman 
and his wife on the Outer Banks of North Carolina, Mr. Chairman, about 
two decades ago. At that time there was a proposal to decommission or 
to shut down one of the lifeboat stations along the Outer Banks. This 
Coast Guard wife said to me, with tears in her eyes, if they shut down 
that Cost Guard station, things will never be the same along the 
Carolina cost.
  What she was saying, without using the words, she was saying the 
Coast Guard is not going to be able to respond. If we shut down that 
station, the Coast Guard is ineffective. That had not been the case at 
all. In fact, the Coast Guard probably has been more effective through 
modernization.
  Now, if any entity in this country and in our society places a high 
value upon life, it is the U.S. Coast Guard, and I am confident that no 
loss of life is going to result from this. But I think, like my friend, 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], said $2 million; the Coast 
Guard indicates $6 million. Let us indicate for the sake of argument $6 
million are involved. By Washington standards, $6 million is not a lot 
of money, the way we blow money on this Hill. To me it is a lot, but by 
Washington standards, it is not. Let us use the late Everett Dirksen's 
line, well-known to all of us. I think he was reported to have said a 
million here and a million there, boys, and then we are talking about 
real money.
  So we must make a start. The Coast Guard is streamlining, and in 
order to do that effectively, they are going to have to be able to 
perform some sort of self-assessment. And it is they, better than any, 
who know what bases and what stations can best be closed.
  I am confident, Mr. Chairman, and I say to my friend from Ohio, I am 
confident that safety is not going to be compromised. We have been told 
earlier today that at some of these small boat stations, some Coast 
Guard men and women are working 90 hours a week. I think that may well 
be another reason to downsize. We are in an era now, Mr. Chairman, of 
downsizing, not just with Government but in the commercial arena. And 
oftentimes downsizing does not mean less effectiveness or less 
efficiency. Conversely, many times it means an enhanced quality of 
efficiency and response time.
  As much respect as I have for my good friend from Ohio, I must oppose 
him on this amendment and urge it be defeated.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I listened to what the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Coble] said, and again I know of his distinguished career, both 
here in Congress as well as having been a member of the Coast Guard, 
but I, listening to him, believe in some ways he was making the case 
for the Traficant amendment, even though I know that was not his 
intention.
  He said that the small boat stations tend to get involved with the 
local community. They are almost like the church. I have to agree. But 
that is the very reason why the Coast Guard presence is necessary to 
small boat stations.
  Again, I would reiterate that one of the propositions that the Coast 
Guard is putting forward is that somehow when these stations close, 
that other State or local or nonprofit organizations are going to take 
up the slack.
  The bottom line is, and I will use my own station at Shark River in 
New Jersey as an example, the only reason why those other organizations 
are involved, like the auxiliary, is because of the presence of the 
Coast Guard. If the station closes and there is no
 permanent Coast Guard presence there with full-time personnel, then it 
would be impossible in most situations for the auxiliary, and 
particularly in these times with downsizing of State government and 
local government, for the State government to step in. In my own State 
of New Jersey, that would not happen. The marine police has downsized 
and has less money today than it did a few years before.

  The gentleman also mentioned modernization. It is true of course 
there have been a lot of changes in their technologies now. But those 
technologies are not that helpful for those in the immediate scene. 
Back in 1988, when they closed the Shark River station, sure, between 
1988 and now there are more helicopters and new technology, but 
everyone on the scene will tell you the presence of people, of full-
time Coast Guard personnel, at the location, in the inlet, in this case 
Shark River, and you could use it throughout the country, their 
immediate response is what is necessary, the fact that you have the 
people there, the hands on situation.
  The chairman mentioned the $6 million in savings that is cited by the 
Coast Guard. Once again, I know our ranking Member, Mr. Traficant, has 
noted that the actual cost is closer to $2.5 or $2.6 million. That $6 
million is for consolidation and a lot of other things that are part of 
this plan. It is not specifically for closing the stations. We are 
talking about probably $2 to $3 million being saved. I know that seems 
like a lot, but in the overall scheme of things, when you are talking 
about 23 stations and you are talking about risk of life, it is not a 
lot of money.
  Some stations, it was mentioned by the chairman, have men working 90 
hours a week. We are not saying in this Traficant amendment that 
resources cannot be shifted around. The billets, as they say, or men, 
can be shifted, so some stations have less personnel and others more. 
What we are saying is we do not want the stations closed. Some of them 
maybe can get by with less personnel or can rely through a combination 
on auxiliary or other volunteer efforts, but they cannot be closed and 
cannot not have a full-time Coast Guard presence.
  I have to stress, you know, one of the issues that is being raised 
here is that the Coast Guard maintains that at some of the stations the 
amount of search and rescue has not increased significantly in the last 
few years. I will point out, in making their analysis for this 
streamlining plan, they did not take into consideration, and they will 
tell you they did not, all the other functions that have been added by 
this body and by the Federal Government to the Coast Guard. They did 
not include the increase in dealing with environmental laws, fishing 
laws, in drug trafficking prevention. All of these extra things we have 
put on the Coast Guard for the last few years are being carried out at 
a lot of these small boat stations.
                              {time}  1600

  They are on the increase. The amount of traffic in a lot of these 
locations is also on the increase. It is ridiculous for us to assume 
that with all the extra burdens for us to assume that with all the 
additional pleasure craft that exist at these various locations around 
the country that somehow the amount of work has been reduced or somehow 
we are going to be able to get by without the presence of these 
stations.
  if we talk, and I know many of us have during the break, we went back 
to our districts. I had a town meeting, and I talked to the people in 
the vicinity of my station. They were horrified to think that the 
station would close. The experience in 1988 showed that it does not 
work. Let us not put our population, our constituents through this 
again. Support the Traficant amendment as the only way to go to assure 
that lives are saved and let the Coast Guard presence continue in these 
various communities.
  [[Page H4585]] Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I must reluctantly rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by my good friend from Ohio. Certainly it is well-
intentioned, but I must point out that this amendment, if adopted, 
represents the ultimate in micromanagement. This amendment says to the 
U.S. Coast Guard, which is charged with safety, says to them: Congress 
is telling you you are not allowed to manage your own operations. 
Congress knows better than you about safety. Congress is telling you 
you cannot close a single Coast Guard station.
  Indeed, many of these stations are over 100 years old, when row 
boats, yes, row boats were used as the means of getting out to perform 
search and rescue operations.
  But it is not 1896. We are approaching 1996. And, therefore, we 
should recognize the advances in technology and modern capability and 
give the Coast Guard the freedom to make these kinds of decisions, 
particularly when GAO has looked carefully at their proposals and GAO 
has concluded that not only is the process used by the Coast Guard 
reasonable but that they reviewed them and they endorse what the Coast 
Guard is attempting to accomplish.
  It is extremely important that we give this flexibility to the Coast 
Guard. And I would emphasize that in committee, in order to be certain 
that we were not going to give safety a second place position in these 
considerations, we included in the bill language that requires the 
Secretary of Transportation to determine that safety will not be 
diminished before any search and rescue station can be closed.
  So I say, let us recognize the Coast Guard as modernized. The Coast 
Guard, indeed, cares about safety. That is their mission. And we should 
not tie the hands of the Coast Guard by telling them that what they 
were doing in 1896 they still must continue to do in 1996.
  For all of those reasons, I urge the defeat of this well-intentioned 
amendment.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in strong support of the Traficant amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I fail to understand why the Republicans feel 
absolutely compelled to support the administration's every initiative. 
Now, I understand, I will remind Members, this is not some evil 
Republican budget cutting proposal. This is a proposal by the 
Democratic Administration to cut some $2 or $3 million, in the case of 
these small stations, out of Coast Guard. While I appreciate the 
intense loyalty of the new majority around here, I think you should 
feel free to oppose the administration when you think they are wrong. I 
certainly do. This is one of those cases.
  I am aware that downsizing, God help us all, is in. It is in, in 
corporations. it is in, in government. Democrats are busy reinventing 
government, and you folks are busy eliminating government. But 
everybody is downsizing in one way or another. If there is anything 
that is not too big today, it is the U.S. Coast Guard. I defy any 
Member of this Congress to suggest that the Coast Guard has too many 
resources. I know that the gentleman may speak for himself, but I do 
not think anybody really believes that.
  Year after year, decade after decade we have piled more 
responsibilities on the Coast Guard, not less: law enforcement, marine 
environmental protection, boating safety, drug law enforcement and, of 
course, the most important mission of all, search and rescue. They are 
one of most grossly underfunded and understaffed agencies in the 
Government.
  To stand up here and suggest that we need to downsize them I think is 
a bit much.
  We are going to have more debates this year, I suspect, of a calculus 
kind of how much is a human life worth. I do not choose to participate 
in that debate, because I do not think it can be done. I do not think 
any of us is able to put a dollar value on a human life. We are talking 
about $2 or $3 or, if you say $5 or $6, no more than $6 million. God 
knows how many human lives we are talking about. But if it were only 
one, is a human life worth $3 million? I guess it depends whose life it 
is. If it is yours or your spouse's or your child's, I doubt you would 
hesitate very long in answering the question.
  We all have parochial concerns here. In my
   district, the original idea of Coast Guard was to close two stations 
and make one of them seasonal, summer only.

  The first thing they ought to do is make Provincetown on the tip of 
Cape Cod summer only. I am pleased to report that we talked them out of 
that inane idea. I have lost five fishing vessels with all hands since 
I have been in this office out of that port, every one of them in the 
winter. Talk about closing such a station in the winter. You can fill 
in your own adjective.
  Now they want to close the station in Scituate just south of Boston 
and the station in Menemsha on Martha's Vineyard. If we look at the 
criteria, they are looking at response times. They are saying, well, we 
need x numbers to respond. Would you believe they use the same response 
time in Florida as they do in Massachusetts and Maine? I doubt there is 
any Member of this House who, if told you have to spend 10 minutes in 
the water in January, would choose Cape Cod rather than southern 
Florida. The odds, to put it mildly, are very, very different.
  But the calculus, as we understand it, used by the Coast Guard to say 
how many minutes response time there needs to be were uniform across 
the Nation. That is crazy. That does not make any sense.
  In New England, furthermore, as you may have heard we have a fishing 
crisis. We are about to put into effect dramatic, new, stringent 
reductions in fishing efforts. This is going to mean dramatically 
increased law enforcement responsibilities for the Coast Guard. Sadly, 
it is probably going to mean greater search and rescue demands because 
people are going to stretch a little bit further and go out in weather 
they probably should not go out in, fish longer than they should with 
smaller crews than they should have to try to eke a living out of what 
they are still allowed to do. That means more search and rescue 
responsibilities for the Coast Guard.
  Let me finally say, if I may, having conceded that this is not an 
evil Republican budget cutting amendment and sadly conceding that it is 
coming from my own administration, I hear that there is going to be 
released to the public a Republican budget this week sometime. I do not 
know, and I am certainly not privy to the consultations going on, but I 
would not be surprised if we were to see an order of magnitude cut 
across the board in the Department of Transportation far exceeding what 
we are talking about here.
  This heat, this emotion that is being engendered in this debate is 
about a cut in the Coast Guard budget of a fraction of 1 percent. What 
would happen if the new Republican budget, in the spirit of downsizing 
of our times, asked for a 10- or a 20- or 30-percent cut in all 
functions of the Department of Transportation? I do not know whether 
that is going to happen, but I would not be surprised if that happens 
in all so-called discretionary programs. And if it does, the debate we 
have just had on this floor will be as nothing compared to the human 
lives that will be at stake if we are presented with that.
  So let us take this opportunity, Republicans and Democrats together, 
to rally against one of the few instances where this Democratic 
administration has been wrong.
  I urge the support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio. I have grave reservations with regard to the Coast 
Guard's small boat unit streamlining initiative. In particular, I am 
concerned with the impact of this proposal on the maritime safety in 
New England. The Coast Guard has proposed closing three stations in 
Massachusetts, including two in my district--Station Scituate and 
Station Menemsha on Martha's Vineyard.
  I fully understand the Coast Guard's need to periodically reallocate 
its personnel and equipment resources and, generally, to do more with 
less. However, there are several issues which, in my view, require the 
Coast Guard to maintain a high level of search-and-rescue [SAR] 
capacity in the region. For the past several months, I have been 
working closely with area fishermen, lobstermen, and municipal 
officials to study the merits of the streamlining plan. We have 
compiled what I believe are compelling reasons why these stations 
should 
[[Page H4586]] remain open. However, while we are most familiar with 
the circumstances in the Northeast, these issues raise fundamental 
questions with the national impact of the Coast Guard's plan.
  In my view, the Coast Guard's recommendations have not adequately 
taken into account the severe weather conditions, particularly water 
temperature, prevalent in the region. The difference between life and 
death can be a matter of minutes in the freezing waters off Northeast 
shores. Yet in recommending stations for closure the Coast Guard 
applied the same response time to Massachusetts as it did to Florida.
  Additionally, there are serious questions about closing Stations 
Scituate and Menemsha in the larger context of personnel and asset 
relocations throughout New England. When taken together they appear to 
spread SAR resources too thinly. The Coast Guard plans to move three 
HU-25A Aireye jets from Air Station Cape Cod to Texas and transfer the 
cutter Point Jackson from Woods Hole to Florida. Under the streamlining 
initiative, the Coast Guard has also recommended the closure of several 
other stations in Massachusetts, Maine, and Rhode Island. I have seen 
little evidence that the Coast Guard fully considered the broader 
ramifications of these recommendations.
  In fact, a recent event has demonstrated that the Coast Guard's SAR 
assets in the region may already be overextended. This past weekend a 
helicopter from the New York National Guard responded to two separate 
SAR situations off Rhode Island because Coast Guard units based at Air 
Station Cape Cod were occupied with SAR operations elsewhere. It should 
be noted that this incident took place before the busy summer boating 
season and with all the Massachusetts SAR stations in operation.
  Finally, the Coast Guard's closure study did not adequately take into 
consideration the other missions that these stations perform, including 
marine environmental protection, boating safety, and maritime law 
enforcement.
  In particular, the collapse of groundfish stocks in New England--
which has had severe ramifications on the fishing industry in the 
region--will require an increase in Coast Guard activities both in 
terms of a potential rise in SAR operations and administration of 
fisheries regulations.
  While I am working with the Commerce Department to secure Federal 
assistance for fishermen, the only feasible solution to this crisis is 
to close the fishing grounds on Georges Bank to allow depleted stocks 
to recover. Experience suggests, however, that many fishermen will fish 
longer hours and in more inclement weather, forgo maintenance, and 
operate with smaller crews to make ends meet.
  At the same time, new groundfish regulations currently being 
promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries Service to help rebuild 
stocks will require vigorous enforcement by the Coast Guard. Both 
Stations Scituate and Menemsha are also responsible for enforcement of 
laws and treaties, which includes the inspection of catches and 
equipment. Furthermore, Station Menemsha is responsible for New 
Bedford, one of the busiest fishing ports on the east coast.
  In my view, the potential public safety consequences make a review of 
the Coast Guard's plans imperative and I would urge my colleagues to 
support the Traficant amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and, speaking as 
a member of the House Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee 
on Appropriations, which has jurisdiction over the Coast Guard, I would 
like to bring a couple of points to the body's attention.
  First, the Commandant of the Coast Guard knows his budget is being 
reduced as it is for every other part of the Federal Government. In a 
response, not necessarily anybody other than the Commandant has 
analyzed in depth the need for maintaining all of the service's small 
boat stations.
  What the Commandant found is that the service does not need all of 
the stations they have today. That is because of demographic changes 
and better operating procedures and the procurement of faster boats and 
helicopters. New technology enables us today to search a wider 
territory and get on scene in the required time without having a boat 
station right around the corner.
  I understand that no Member wants to lose a Coast Guard station in 
their district or in their State. I also understand that some States 
are harder hit by the Coast Guard plan than others. However, Members 
should know before voting on this amendment, this is not a budget-
driven measure. It is done because it is sufficient.
  The General Accounting Office has reviewed the Coast Guard's 
processes for reviewing its needs for boat stations. They said it 
provides, and I quote, ``a reasonable basis for determining the 
appropriate number of stations and the appropriate resources of the 
stations.''
  In fact, when GAO came up before the committee, we asked them about 
this, as we also did when we asked the Coast Guard. This was the same 
GAO, I would remind the Members, who 5 years ago refused to endorse the 
closure of any stations because the Coast Guard had not done its 
homework. This time they have.
  According to the Coast Guard they can perform the safe level of life 
saving with fewer stations and with the budget being reduced and then 
being more efficient.
  I also should let Members knows that funds are not included in the 
fiscal year 1996 budget for these stations. They are low-activity 
stations, and that is why they are on the Coast Guard list. If we 
prevent these stations from being closed, Mr. Chairman, we will have to 
cut $6 million from other parts of the Coast Guard's operating budget 
to pay for them, parts of the Coast Guard's operating budget that they 
do not want to see cut. This will have a much greater impact on safety, 
in my opinion.
  And in closing, Mr. Chairman, let me say, as the gentleman from 
Massachusetts said, this amendment is opposed by the Department of 
Transportation and by the Coast Guard. There are no funds in the fiscal 
year 1996 budget to implement it without harming other programs.
  I urge the body to vote the amendment down.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we just heard that people with the green eyeshades 
downtown here in Washington, DC, reviewed the Coast Guard process and 
they found that it was meritorious. People with the green eyeshades in 
downtown Washington, DC, have never tried to cross a bar entrance in 
Oregon with an outgoing tide and a strong wind. It is pretty tough. In 
fact, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, in this bulletin of January of 
this year said, and I quote, this is the Commandant of the Coast Guard, 
the same gentleman recommending these cuts referring to the Pacific 
Northwest:

       This area has always challenged mariners with its isolated, 
     storm-battered coastline, strenuous harbor entrance. From 
     seasoned fishermen to unwary vacationers, thousands of people 
     annually learn hard lessons due to suddenly changing tides 
     and weather.

  This is the same Commandant who wants to close two lifesaving 
stations in my district. The last Commandant closed those two 
lifesaving stations in my district, and within 2 months five people 
drowned, five people who could have been saved.
  The GAO and the people with the green eyeshades think you can tread 
water for 40 minutes. Well, you cannot tread water for 40 minutes, as 
the gentleman from Massachusetts pointed out, when it is cold in the 
Atlantic, not in the summertime but in other months of the year. You 
cannot tread water for 40 minutes while you are waiting for the 
helicopter in the bar entrances in my district either, not at the 
Coquille River, not at the Rogue River, not at the other areas 
scheduled for cuts.
  We are talking about one-tenth of 1 percent of the operating budget 
of the U.S. Coast Guard. If this is an agency that does not have one-
tenth of 1 percent of cuts that it can make somewhere else except in 
lifesaving, then this agency should be running the entire Government of 
the United States of America, because I cannot say that about any other 
agency of the U.S. Government. And I do not believe that anybody in 
this House, particularly Members from that side of the aisle, would 
make that assertion about any other agency of the Federal Government, 
one-tenth of 1 percent. Is that too much to save lives?
  By the Coast Guard's own estimates, two people will drown this year 
to save one-tenth of 1 percent of their operating budget.
                      [[Page H4587]] {time}  1615

  You might say that is a reasonable cost, about $1 million per person. 
What if it is your father, your mother, your kid, just a friend, a 
neighbor? Do you think it was worth that cut?
  Do you think it was worth abandoning the principal historic mission 
of the U.S. Coast Guard on 120 miles of the Oregon coast in the 
Northern Michigan Peninsula, in New Jersey, in Massachusetts, in other 
areas? Is it worth abandoning to save one-tenth of 1 percent, or so the 
admiral will not have to find one-tenth of 1 percent somewhere else in 
his budget to cut?
  I do not believe so, and I do not believe it should be the judgment 
of this body, because if that is the judgment of this body, then the 
blood of the people who will drown, and they will drown, the Coast 
Guard says two will drown, I think maybe 10 or 20 will drown, given the 
experience in my district 7 years ago, people will die because of this 
vote.
  This is a little more serious than a lot of the other votes cast 
here. The green eyeshades downtown do not know anything when it comes 
to this. The Commandant of the Coast Guard does. He says these are 
treacherous entrances, but he is going to abandon them and serve them 
from 120 miles away with a helicopter.
  As the distinguished ranking member of the committee worked out, that 
is a pretty tough thing to do in high winds and low visibility, let 
alone talking about the water temperatures and survival times, none of 
which was factored into this great equation that the GAO said was okay. 
What the GAO said is they did their math right. They did not say that 
this makes sense for people on the ground or in the water around the 
United States of America.
  This is an ill-intentioned cut, and this body should not let this cut 
be made, and we should vote for the Traficant amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the members of the House Committee on 
Transportation, especially the chairman, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and the subcommittee chairman, the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble], for including my legislation 
in this year's Coast Guard reauthorization bill.
  Because the Coast Guard is not bound by the same procurement policies 
as is the Department of Defense, U.S. manufacturers of buoy chain are 
unable to compete with foreign manufacturers. Historically, the Coast 
Guard has purchased the majority of buoy chain from the People's 
Republic of China.
  My legislation, as included in the en bloc amendment, would subject 
the Coast Guard to the same procurement policies as the Department of 
Defense, therefore restricting the purchase of chain not manufactured 
in the United States. In addition, all of the components of the buoy 
chain must be produced or manufactured in the United States.
  This legislation will help us maintain an even economic playing field 
in international trade. American laborers are hardworking and our goods 
are among the best in the world, but we must ensure American businesses 
are not undercut by cheap foreign labor costs.
  It would be unwise to enact protectionist trade measures which 
ultimately hurt consumers and producers by reducing competition. 
However, we must be on equal terms with foreign producers. Countries 
such as China are able to undercut United States production and 
underbid United States firms for large contracts.
  ``Buy American'' is sound policy for American jobs, a strong economy 
and national defense. If we put out chain manufacturers out of 
business, we may find ourselves without a supply should a conflict 
arise. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to join the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Studds] in congratulating the majority for rising to the support of the 
Clinton administration, though expressing my regrets that they have 
chosen this unfortunate moment on such an ill-conceived issue.
  To make clear, Mr. Chairman, that I represent no Coast Guard 
stations, indeed, no beach areas, I seek no stations, and indeed, do 
not think they should be built in my own district of New Jersey, but I 
rise to the defense of the capabilities of the Coast Guard, because 
this issue is more than whether or not there is a Coast Guard station 
in New Jersey or Massachusetts or Oregon. This goes to the central 
mission of the Federal Government and its responsibility to our people.
  Because there are things that our Government has done, agencies it 
maintains, expenditures that it makes which are inappropriate, 
expenditures which should be eliminated and activities which should be 
curtailed, there are many who would now come to this floor, and indeed, 
today they have the Clinton
 administration with them, to end those activities which are central, 
things which only the Federal Government can do, things upon which the 
people of our country depend upon the Federal Government to do.

  For 200 years people, from mariners to the boating public to 
fishermen across America, have come to rely for their safety and for 
rescue at moments of peril upon the Coast Guard. We are now presented 
with a plan to close 23 of those stations, some of them that have 
operated for generations, saved hundreds of people at moments of peril, 
to save one-tenth of 1 percent of the Coast Guard budget.
  In an incredible calculation, the Coast Guard can even demonstrate 
the cities, the oceans, the rivers, the places, and the numbers of 
lives that will be lost. And for what? Six million dollars, $6 million 
that we justifiably seek to reduce in areas where the Federal 
Government's activities are inappropriate and should be curtailed, or 
should be ended. But instead, we return to a central function of the 
Federal Government, maintaining safety on the seas and in our 
waterways, and in doing so, risk enormous danger for our citizens.
  Most ironic is that while we reduce these Coast Guard activities in 
these 23 stations, we ask for greater surveillance to ensure that our 
fishing stocks are not depleted, we increase responsibility for drug 
interdiction, to ensure that narcotics are not reaching our coasts, we 
ask for higher environmental standards to make sure that international 
shipping does not dump their cargoes or their waste or their oil into 
our waters. We mount their responsibilities, we increase the standards, 
we want the American people to believe that they are safe in moments of 
leisure or work, but we take away their very resources.
  Mr. Chairman, I have not been bashful when it came to moments to vote 
to cut Government spending or end its missions, but there is a time in 
which Members of this institution must understand those items of safety 
and security which are central to the functions of the Federal 
Government, missions that if we do not do, no one else will do, 
missions if they are not completed will take the lives of our people.
  The people of our country do not generally ask a lot of this Federal 
Government. Usually they ask simply that it do less. This is one 
instance where for 200 years, as certainly as people have come to 
expect if their car or their truck breaks down along a highway, a 
patrolman will come to their rescue, so, too, through these generations 
people have come to expect that if they are lost at sea, if their boat 
is in peril, they will see a Coast Guard ship come to their rescue. 
That expectation need not change, not for $6 million, not for such a 
small saving, not when there are so many other opportunities.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I, too, rise in support of the amendment of the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. Let me first acknowledge that for 
the several Congresses we have just come through I have had the 
extraordinary privilege of chairing the Coast Guard Subcommittee of the 
former Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, and so I know the 
awesome task and the difficult job that my good friend, the gentleman 
from North Carolina, Mr. Howard Coble, has now in shepherding this bill 
and dealing with these very complex and controversial issues, 
particularly at a time of deep budget strain and stress.
  [[Page H4588]] I take my hat off to no one in voting to make budget 
cuts around here. I do a lot more of that than many of the Members do, 
and we have a lot more of that coming, but part of the process by which 
we make budget cuts, and we reach toward that incredibly difficult goal 
of a balanced budget by the year 2002, is a process called 
prioritizing.
  It is a process by which in the various budgets and the various 
moneys that we collect from the American public and spend back for 
their benefit, we hope, that we list and indeed fund first those things 
which are most critical to the function of a given agency, to the 
function of a given department of our Government.
  If there is one function that is most central to the operation of the 
U.S. Coast Guard, it is the function of search and rescue. If there is 
one function above all else that I would rank as the No. 1 priority of 
the U.S. Coast Guard, it is to be the guardians of the sea.
  We, as previous speakers have pointed out, lump enormous 
responsibilities upon the Coast Guard. Every year we seem to find 
something new for them to do. Every year, as we peel back some 
responsibility on some other agency, we give it to the U.S. Coast 
Guard. They have become, as someone pointed out, environmental agents 
for the Nation now. They are now part of the fisheries enforcement 
apparatus of America. They are in many cases called upon, as I said, to 
do things we had not envisioned the Coast Guard doing when we first 
appointed and placed in service the men and women of this incredible 
branch of the U.S. Government.
  With fewer men and women serving than those who serve in the New York 
Metropolitan Police Department, we carry out these enormous functions 
for our country.
  However, what are we doing today? What are we doing today in debating 
seriously a Coast Guard attempt to shut down its most important 
function first, instead of maybe dealing with all the other things it 
does that perhaps we ought to be talking about curtaining or somehow 
cutting down? What are we doing discussing closing the small boat 
stations of America that provide the ready access to relief and search 
and rescue in cases where American boaters are put at risk, and 
sometimes their lives are at stake?
  There is no greater honor bestowed upon a Coast Guard man or women 
than the honor of being a lifesaver. There is nothing that Coast Guard 
men and women speak more proudly of than the number of lives they save 
each year, and they save a ton of lives each year. They do a tremendous 
job for us. Why would we even be considering, in whatever budget cuts 
or whatever curtailments of expenditures we want to make here, stopping 
the most important function of the U.S. Coast Guard; in fact, 
imperiling lives on some kind of an arbitrary formula that does not 
take into account very dangerous entrances and exits and storm 
conditions, temperatures of water; getting a formula that closes Coast 
Guard stations based upon some arithmetic calculation made here in 
Washington, DC?
  I challenge Members, please, let us support this amendment. Let us 
make sure that in this and every budget we do what we are supposed to 
do, prioritize. The function, indeed, of saving lives ought to be No. 1 
within the Coast Guard. We ought to make it No. 1 in this Chamber.
  We ought to tell the American public we are prepared to make tough 
cuts, but we are also prepared to do the most important thing 
Government is supposed to do, and that is protect lives, protect 
liberty, and protect property in America.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the 
distinguished ranking Democrat on the Coast Guard and Maritime 
Transportation Subcommittee, Mr. Traficant. Closing 23 small search and 
rescue stations, as the Coast Guard has proposed, would save only a 
relatively small amount of money. However, it would remove a vital 
marine safety presence from the affected coastal communities.
  I believe the Coast Guard has done a good job in how it has gone 
about reorganizing and rationalizing its small boat station staffing. 
Most of that will be realized under the Traficant amendment. And the 
Coast Guard may well be able to respond to emergencies adequately with 
other resources. My concern is that if these stations are closed, there 
would be a dimunition of safety, simply because the safety 
professionals from the Coast Guard would no longer be in the community.
  The Coast Guard would no longer be there to offer safety advice or 
take an enforcement action against a boater doing something stupid. 
People admire and look up the Coast Guard. That role model for good 
safety practices would be removed, and I believe that would hurt safety 
in the long run.
  I urge adoption of the Traficant amendment.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I support Mr. Traficant's amendment 
because I feel that it is necessary that before the Coast Guard closes 
a station, they should develop and implement a transition plan in 
consultation with the affected communities. I have expressed this 
desire to the Coast Guard and while they are supported of the idea, 
they have yet to take the necessary steps to ensure the transition will 
be a smooth one for the communities. This amendment sets a 1-year 
moratorium on closings. During this time, I would hope that the Coast 
Guard would work with the affected communities to develop a plan that 
will ensure the safety of the boaters and residents of the area.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. The vote will be for 17 minutes.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 146, 
noes 272, not voting 16, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 308]

                               AYES--146

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Beilenson
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Camp
     Cardin
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dixon
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Stark
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tauzin
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--272

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     [[Page H4589]] Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Berman
     Boehlert
     Brown (CA)
     Collins (MI)
     Dingell
     Fattah
     Ford
     Gonzalez
     Jefferson
     Maloney
     Moakley
     Peterson (FL)
     Rogers
     Taylor (MS)
     Wilson
     Zimmer

                              {time}  1651

  Mr. DEUTSCH, Mrs. THURMAN, and Messrs. MEEHAN, NEAL of Massachusetts, 
and BARRETT of Wisconsin changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. PETRI, WALSH, and SANDERS changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as we are taking up the Coast Guard authorization bill 
we are also taking it up on a day that is truly a dark day in the Coast 
Guard's history and in America's history. This is a day that the U.S. 
Coast Guard has joined forces with one of the evil regimes in the world 
and in world history, the Castro government. The U.S. Coast Guard, who 
has had such a glorious history over hundreds of years, today escorted 
people for the first time in American history back to a Communist 
dictatorship. It truly is a dark day not just in the Coast Guard's 
history but in America's history.
  It is a policy which has never been done before and hopefully will 
never be done again. There are many of us in this Chamber and 
throughout this country who are urging the President to stop this 
policy. Coast Guard vessels which have been used to save lives for 
hundreds and hundreds of years, in fact within the last year have saved 
hundreds of lives, thousands of lives, were used today to bring 13 
people back to what we do not know, what might be death, what might be 
torture. It is totally naive by this administration to believe that 
those people will not be suffering for their consequences. It defies 
the logic of history, it defies what we do know. It defies recent 
history where this Government has continually pointed to the Castro 
regime as one of the worst human rights abusers in the world, in fact 
in the history of the world, and yet that is what our Government's 
resources and our Coast Guard was involved in today.
  Now is not the time to particularly reduce Coast Guard authorization 
for that action. But our hope and I believe again the majority of the 
Members in this Chamber and a majority of people throughout this 
country is that this policy will change and will change in short order.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to respond very briefly to the gentleman from 
Florida. I am not going to take my 5 minutes, but I feel obliged to at 
least respond to what he said. I cannot disagree with most of what he 
said, but since we are now debating the authorization bill for the 
Coast Guard, I think I need to make it clear to my colleagues that we 
should not kill the messenger in this case.
  The Coast Guard after all is the appropriate agency for implementing 
the President's policy. Whether or not we agree with the President's 
policy, that may well be another ball game, but I do not think we can 
be justified in pointing accusatory fingers to the Coast Guard for 
taking its part in repatriating those Cubans back to Cuba.
  I am advised that those Cubans who were picked up by the Coast Guard 
from a cruise ship have been aboard a Coast Guard cutter since that 
day, which I think was last Thursday, and the repatriation process is 
going on now.
  I just want to insert my oars in the water, Mr. Chairman, on behalf 
of the Coast Guard. I do not disagree with what the gentleman from 
Florida said, but I think it needs to be made clear that the Coast 
Guard is merely implementing the President's policy.
                     amendment offered by mr. roth

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. chairman, I had risen previously and I am a member 
of the committee. What is the procedure here. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has recognized the gentleman from Wisconsin 
already, and as a committee member, the gentleman from Oregon will be 
recognized next.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina reserves a point of 
order on the amendment.
  The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Roth: At the end of title IV (page 
     43, after line 13), add the following new section (and amend 
     the table of contents accordingly):

      SEC.   . LIMITATION ON FEES AND CHARGES WITH RESPECT WITH 
                   RESPECT TO FERRIES.

       The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is 
     operating may not assess or collect any fee or charge with 
     respect to a ferry. Not withstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, the Secretary is authorized to reduce expenditures 
     in an amount equal to the fees or charges which are not 
     collected or assessed as a result of this section.

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, we have too many laws in our country, too 
many taxes that do not make sense, and that is the purpose of this 
amendment. Ferry boats provide not only essential transportation but 
for many purposes they are the only form of public transportation to 
many places.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. Chairman, we are debating an issue here today that is affecting 
the lives of many people in our country, and that is why I think it is 
important for us to give due deliberation to these amendments.
  Ferry boats are really the lifeline to many communities. Now, under 
U.S. law, the Coast Guard is allowed to exempt a ferry boat from paying 
taxes if it is determined to be of a public interest.
  In my home State of Wisconsin, ferries are considered public, so 
public that the public service commission regulates them.
  The only way to get to Washington Island, for example, in my 
district, which is off of the coast of the beautiful Door County area 
in Wisconsin, you have to go by ferry. This island is inhabited by some 
650 residents year around, many more in the summer. The only way to get 
to the island is by ferry boat.
  These boats are the lifeline to the community. They take care of the 
ambulance service, mail service, groceries, fuel and heat.
  Now, citizens rely on ferries all over the United States. So this is 
not only affecting Wisconsin, this
 is affecting many, many areas in your States also.

  During one of the many destructive floods on the Mississippi, for 
example, many families and towns relied on the ferries to get them to 
the hospital and to safe shelter. When San Francisco, for example, the 
Golden Gate Bridge, for example, was damaged by an earthquake, the bay 
area relied on ferry boats.
  If these new destructive taxes go into effect, as scheduled on May 1, 
one ferry 
[[Page H4590]] boat operator, for example, on the Washington Island 
line will be penalized by some $5,175, that is over $5,000.
  When this amendment goes into effect, what it will do is return some 
fairness, and that is all I am asking. I am asking that the Congress 
consider this as a public service.
  Let us not tax these people to death. Let us not choke off this vital 
lifeline from Door County to Washington Island.
  As I say, this is not the only area in the country, but there are 
many areas like this, and I ask the Members to approve this amendment.


                             point of order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble] 
insist on his point of order?
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. COBLE. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the 
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, that much of what he said I am 
not in disagreement with, but I do not think this is the proper forum, 
for this reason: I think the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Roth] violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act by 
providing negative budget authority for the fiscal year 1995.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on that?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Roth].
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I realize the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Coble] is probably one of the most gifted lawyers in the House.
  I wanted to point out that whenever we cut taxes, it is never in 
order.
  Let me say something: When you read this amendment, and the 
appropriate statute, you find that the ferry is defined as a public 
service. Then the tax does not apply.
  Also, I want to point out that the second argument is that the 
amendment gives the Secretary the authority to reduce expenditures in 
the amount equal to the tax not collected.
  Therefore, this amendment is in order.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dickey). The Chair is prepared to rule. Based on 
the last argument from the gentleman from Wisconsin, that the record 
new budget authority would be offset, the Chair holds that the 
amendment is in order.
  Mr. ROTH. Well, I thank the Chair very much, and I ask for an 
affirmative vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. That ruling is based on the last sentence of the 
amendment.
  Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
  The amendment was agreed to.
                    amendment offered by mr. defazio

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

  Amendment offered by Mr. DeFazio: At the end of title I, add the 
following new section:

     SEC.   . LIMITATION OF USE OF AMOUNTS TO CLOSE MULTIMISSION 
                   SMALL BOAT STATIONS.

       Amounts appropriated under the authority of this Act may 
     not be used to close any multimission small boat station 
     unless the Secretary of Transportation determines that the 
     closing will have less negative impact on maritime safety 
     than the elimination of Coast Guard administrative aircraft.

  Mr. DeFAZIO (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 
Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, during the Traficant amendment, the issue 
was raised that we should not ask the Coast Guard to go back to the 
well; they could not find the few million dollars necessary to keep 
those 23 small boat lifesaving stations open. As I pointed out, it is 
one-tenth of 1 percent of the budget.
  But since we did not want to mandate that the Coast Guard return to 
their budget and apply a magnifying glass, I decided, if the Traficant 
amendment failed, to offer one of my own and help them out.
  I referred to a report of the Government, of the Department of 
Transportation and the Office of the Inspector General, and in regard 
tot he transportation activities of the U.S. Coast Guard, in 
particular, my amendment goes to one part of those transportation 
activities; that is, the private jet of the Commandant of the Coast 
Guard of the United States.
  For the last year for which they have figures, the private jet 
utilized by the Commandant of the Coast Guard of the United States and 
others cost the Coast Guard $3,363,263, more money than is necessary to 
keep those 23 small boat life-saving stations open.
  So the decision before this Congress is: Should we maintain a private 
jet which has been utilized by the Secretary of the Department of 
Transportation? He also has private jets in other parts of his budget 
and can also utilize the private jets at Andrews Air Force Base, and 
the Commandant of the Coast Guard, who used it about half the time, 
vice commandant, area commanders, other Coast Guard personnel, and 
surprise, surprise, Members of the U.S. Congress utilized the private 
jet of the Commandant, of the Coast Guard for an estimated $323,385 
last year.
  So is it better that we spend $323,385 ferrying Members of Congress 
around in the Commandant's private jet, or we save people who are 
drowing off the coast of Michigan and the Great Lakes and off the coast 
of Massachusetts and New Jersey?
  I think that in these days where we are asking people to cut to the 
bone, and in these days when Congress is cutting back on its 
privileges, how can it justify a private jet which is used for Members 
of Congress, other people, and about half the time for the Commandant 
of the Coast Guard?
  I, as one Member of Congress, would be quite willing to pony up a 
bunch of my frequent flier miles
 so the commandant would never have to fly in coach. He could always 
fly first class. Now, I am sure it is not going to be the same as a 
private jet. If there was an emergency and he needed a private jet, he 
could go to Andrews Air Force Base, where they maintain about 40 
private jets for bigwigs in the military, and I am certain they would 
let him use one.

  So why do we have private jets in the Coast Guard, private jets in 
the Highway Department, private jets in other agencies of the Federal 
Government, and then a whole bunch of private jets in the military? If 
we are going to keep private jets to ferry around Members of Congress 
and other bigwigs, let us get more efficient, put them all in one 
place. Let us operate them all out of Andrews Air Force Base.
  This amendment is very simple. It would say the Secretary of 
Transportation would have to decide what is more important to the 
lifesaving mission of the Coast Guard: a private jet for the Commandant 
of the Coast Guard of the United States, others, including Members of 
Congress, or the 23 small boat lifesaving stations?
  I think that many Members would join me in determining that in times 
where we have to cut back, we should make the cuts in the areas where 
it hurts least, and I think cutting private jets for Members of 
Congress and the Commandant of the Coast Guard would be, in this case, 
by most Americans considered to be a better cut than cutting 23 small 
boat lifesaving stations.
  I do not believe that a person treading cold water off Nantucket 
Island or in the northern part of the Great Lakes or off the Oregon 
coast should have to wait 40 minutes to an hour for a Coast Guard 
rescue. I would rather the brass in the Coast Guard and Members of 
Congress waited 40 minutes for a commercial jet at National Airport.
  Again I would be happy to contribute some of my mileage upgrades so 
none of those people will have to fly in coach.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I am not sure I follow the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Oregon. Maybe it is very cleverly drafted, or, in any event, I am not 
with it.
  But I am going to have to oppose this. Much of this is what we 
discussed on the last amendment regarding the fact, folks, that I think 
the Coast Guard needs to have some flexibility as it conducts its self-
assessment, streamlining program.
  Now, some of my Democrat friends earlier were, tongue-in-cheek, and I 
did not object to this, were admonishing me for signing off on the 
administration's proposal.
  [[Page H4591]] Well, the Secretary of Transportation, whom I do not 
know well, and perhaps my friends on the other side may well know him 
better than I, but he had no problem at all with extending to the 
Commandant of the Coast Guard the flexibility to determine what 
stations are to be downsized, and as far as the jet, that obviously is 
a part of the Coast Guard air fleet.
  I urge the defeat of the amendment submitted by the gentleman from 
Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBLE. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment does not mandate that the 
Secretary of Transportation delete the private jet for the Commandant 
of the Coast Guard and Members of Congress. It merely says that the 
Secretary of Transportation must determine what is more important to 
the maritime safety of this Nation, private jet for the Commandant of 
the Coast Guard, Members of Congress and others, or 23 small boat 
lifesaving stations.
  I think that we are just sending the issue back to Secretary Pena for 
another look, because I think perhaps, hopefully, his mind was not 
clouded by his two private jet trips the Commandant provided last year 
for $55,000, and hopefully he would look at this objectively and 
determine we do not need that private jet. It is a luxury jet. It is a 
personal aircraft. It is not a member of the fleet. It is not used for 
strategic or military purposes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to commend my colleague from Oregon for 
proposing this amendment.
  As the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble] said, in terms of 
the background of it, it is very similar to the previous amendment, but 
I do want to commend the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], because 
he has, in effect, identified a source of funding in the Coast Guard to 
pay for us keeping open these small boat stations.
  As was mentioned by some of the speakers in the debate on the 
Traficant amendment, this is really a question of priority. We all know 
we have a limited amount of funds and that we have to prioritize where 
we spend those funds. But the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] is 
saying the priority should be on saving lives and keeping open those 
Coast Guard stations which over the years have generated support not 
only with Coast Guard and Federal money but other auxiliary moneys and 
volunteer efforts to continue the search and rescue operations and the 
other things that the Coast Guard is involved with.
  It certainly makes sense, in my opinion, to eliminate a private jet, 
clearly something that is frivolous and not needed. There have to be 
other ways the Commandant can go about traveling from one place to 
another and save the money by striking that item from the budget.
  Now, I know the amendment does not go so far as to actually mandate 
that be done. I personally would not have a problem with that, but what 
he is saying is he is setting forth the Coast Guard has to make a 
decision and decide which is the higher priority.
  I think there are very few of us that think that eliminating the jet 
and keeping these stations open is not a higher priority. I support the 
amendment, and I commend the gentleman from Oregon for bringing this 
option to the floor of the House.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Oregon knows full well what kind of 
service the Coast Guard provides to our fishermen on the coast of 
Oregon. We are in a very dangerous water.
  The small boat stations are extraordinarily important to not just 
fishermen but also to the people who are on their own boats on the 
coast.
  It shocks me, Mr. Chairman, to find out that there is this private 
jet available, and the cost saving of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] is extraordinarily sensible.
  We have to, in this Congress, be honest when we say we believe in 
cost cutting. We have to say what we are going to cut and what we are 
not going to cut. It is no good saying we are going to be fiscally 
responsible and cut budgets if, in fact, we are cutting things that are 
so vital to our own citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot tell you how important those Coast Guard 
stations are to the people of Oregon and the people of Washington, and 
it is a great favor for me to serve with the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. 
DeFazio], who understands that, too.
  Let us cut this jet. Let us make sure the Secretary of Transportation 
knows what transportation is important to the country and to the people 
of this great Nation.
  I really support and encourage my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
                              {time}  1715

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not have a Coast Guard mini boat station in my 
district, and I did not really have a dog in the fight as far as losing 
any jobs, if that is the argument being taken, and I supported the 
efforts the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] and the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] and others because, quite frankly, I thought 
they were right. I support this amendment, and I want to commend the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  The last time the Congress of the United States allowed for closings 
of small boat stations, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] lost 
five lives of his constituency. Now I do not think the amendment is 
going to pass. I say to the gentleman, ``I am going to support your 
amendment, but I believe the Congress of the United States today has 
done something in concert with actions that have been much too often 
taken in this hall. Congress continues to pass the authority of 
governance to the White House, and the Congress of the United States in 
many cases is not being conferred with. Mr. DeFazio, I think you have 
made a valiant effort. You have certainly brought forward the issue, 
and nobody has done it better than you have, and you and Mr. Pallone 
deserve a tremendous amount of credit for it. I'm going to support your 
amendment; I hope it passes.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  The amendment was rejected.


                   amendment offered by mr. hoekstra

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hoekstra: Page 7, strike lines 12 
     and 13 and insert the following:

     SEC. 104. ENSURING MARITIME SAFETY AFTER CLOSURE OF SMALL 
                   BOAT STATION OR REDUCTION TO SEASONAL STATUS.

       Page 7, line 14, before ``None of the funds'' insert the 
     following: ``(a) Maritime Safety Determination.--''.
       Page 7, after line 18, insert the following:
       (b) Transition Plan Required.--None of the funds 
     appropriated under the authority of this Act may be used to 
     close or reduce to seasonal status a small boat station, 
     unless the Secretary of Transportation, in cooperation with 
     the community affected by the closure or reduction, has 
     developed and implemented a transition plan to ensure that 
     the maritime safety needs of the community will continue to 
     be met.

  Mr. HOEKSTRA (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 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, representing a district that you are well 
aware of; I understand you have a summer residence in west Michigan; 
you appreciate the beauty of the west Michigan shoreline. We are also 
very aware of the critical role that the Coast Guard plays in ensuring 
the safety of boaters and residents in my district. I do believe that 
it is necessary for the Coast Guard to streamline their operations, to 
be both efficient and cost effective, and also to represent the 
changing nature of their mission.
  However, I do not believe this should come at the cost of safety.
  As a Representative of a district that lines the coast of west 
Michigan, I am well aware of the essential role the Coast Guard plays 
in ensuring the safety of boaters and residents in my district. While I 
believe that it is necessary for the Coast Guard to streamline their 
operations to be both efficient and cost effective, I do not believe 
that this should come at the 
[[Page H4592]] cost of safety. H.R. 1361 already states that the Coast 
Guard cannot close a station until the Secretary of Transportation can 
certify that the action will not have a detrimental impact on public 
safety.
  My amendment would add to this provision, stating that before the 
Coast Guard can close a small boat unit, they will have to work in 
cooperation and consultation with the affected communities in 
developing a transition plan that ensures that the safety needs of that 
community are being met.
  By pulling in the community, the Coast Guard will hear the inputs and 
proposals from the people that are affected by their decisions and a 
healthy dialog can take place about possible alternative solutions. The 
Coast Guard has already informally agreed to this procedure but has 
failed to take action on it. My amendment will make communication with 
the communities a requirement before a closing can occur. Through this 
dialog, communities can work with the Coast Guard so that both parties 
will be comfortable with the end result.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. COBLE. I apologize to the gentleman for interrupting, but I think 
I am correct that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], his staff 
and my staff have signed off on this amendment of the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], and we will accept the amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. We have no opposition to the amendment, however, the 
amendment is going to make everybody feel good. However, we have no 
opposition.
  (Mr. HOEKSTRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hoekstra-Castle 
amendment.
  The Coast Guard has proposed closing 23 bases and reducing 13 bases 
to seasonal subunit status.
  Many bases are outdated or inefficient. The intent of the amendment 
is not to oppose base restructuring--but to elevate community 
participation in the planning process.
  In Delaware, the Coast Guard has proposed closing the station at 
Roosevelt inlet and reducing the station at Indian River to seasonal 
duty.
  As you may know, the Commandant of the Coast Guard recently indicated 
they intend to prepare transition plans for communities affected by 
base closure. This amendment supports and expands on this promise.
  The Hoekstra-Castle amendment requires the Coast Guard to:
  First, work in cooperation with communities affected by base closures 
or base reduction to seasonal duties.
  Local communities should be active participants in the policy making 
process.
  Currently, Coast Guard plans do not necessarily include any further 
consultation with local communities.
  Second, develop a transition plan to ensure safety needs are met.
  Currently, transition plans will not be prepared for bases reduced to 
seasonal duties. The amendment requires transition plans for both base 
closures and reductions to seasonal subunit status.
  A written plan will better identify the roles, responsibilities, and 
requirements necessary for a safe and smooth transition.
  It is important to note that this amendment does not increase costs.
  The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that the amendment will 
not change the scoring of the bill.
  The base restructuring initiative will still save $6 million.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].
  The amendment was agreed to.
                    amendment offered by mr. nadler

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler: At the end of title IV 
     (page 43, after line 13), add the following new section (and 
     amend the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC.   . TRANSITION FOR CIVILIAN PERSONNEL UNEMPLOYED DUE TO 
                   CLOSURE OR REALIGNMENT OF COAST GUARD 
                   INSTALLATIONS.

       (a) Eligibility for Retirement.--A civilian employee of the 
     Coast Guard assigned to the Coast Guard installation located 
     at Governor's Island, New York, who becomes unemployed as a 
     result of a closure or realignment of that installation and 
     who would have been eligible for retirement within 5 years 
     after becoming unemployed shall be eligible for full 
     retirement benefits.
       (b) Eligibility for Reemployment.--For purposes of seeking 
     new employment, the authorized geographic area of a civilian 
     employee of the Coast Guard assigned to the Coast Guard 
     installation located at Governor's Island, New York, who 
     becomes unemployed is deemed to be all United States Coast 
     Guard installations located in the United States.

  Mr. NADLER (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 York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble] reserves 
a point of order on the amendment.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] is recognized for 5 minutes 
in support of his amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does two things with respect 
to the Coast Guard base on Governors Island. The Coast Guard base on 
Governors Island has been there since the Revolutionary War and is the 
largest Coast Guard base anywhere in the United States.
  The amendment, as I said, does two things. It permits civilian 
employees who work at the Governors Island base in my district to 
compete for available jobs at bases anywhere in the country should 
their jobs be eliminated because of closure or relocation of the 
Governors Island base, which closure would eliminate approximately 600 
Federal civilian positions. These hardworking people under current law 
would not be allowed to follow their work if it were relocated 
elsewhere in the country because their authorized geographical area 
within which they are entitled to follow the work is limited to New 
York, and there are no Federal Coast Guard jobs left in New York, and 
if the Governors Island base is relocated to, for example, Virginia or 
Florida, under current regulations these civilian employees would not 
be allowed to pursue those new positions. So the first thing the 
amendment does is permit them to do so.
  The second thing the amendment would do would be to permit civilian 
employees currently working at the Governors Island base who are within 
5 years of retirement to become eligible for full retirement benefits 
if they are displaced as a result of the base closure. This amendment 
would affect, this provision, affects, approximately 43 people who are 
within 5 years of retirement and would not otherwise be eligible for 
retirement benefits, and I would be pleased to support colleagues in 
offering the same protections with civil employees who work at other 
Coast Guard bases that may be closed or realigned. These people have 
loyally served the Coast Guard and have loyally served our country for 
over a decade and should not be cast aside when the Government goes on 
doing its business. If the base closes, they will not have the 
opportunity to work at all to earn full time retirement benefits 
because there are no Federal jobs in the area. The civilian men and 
women at the Governors Island installation have worked hard, they have 
played by the rules, they should be treated fairly, and that is what 
this amendment in both its provisions does, and, therefore, I ask for 
the enactment of this amendment.


                             point of order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble] 
persist in his point of order?
  Mr. COBLE. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. COBLE. It is my belief, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment from the 
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] violates section 
401(b)(1) of the Budget Act of 1974. It provides new entitlement 
authority for the current fiscal year.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] wish to 
be heard?
  Mr. NADLER. I await the ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dickey. The Chair is ready to rule.
  The gentleman from North Carolina makes a point of order under 
section 401-B of the Congressional Budget Act 
[[Page H4593]] that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York provides new entitlement authority effective during fiscal year 
1995 on a bill reported to the House in calendar year 1995.
  The Chair finds that amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
provides new entitlement authority in the form of public retirement 
benefits. The Chair also finds that the new entitlement authority would 
be effective on the date of enactment of the bill. Finally, the Chair 
is constrained to contemplate immediate enactment of the bill.
  Accordingly, the Chair holds that the amendment of the gentleman from 
New York fails to comply with section 401-B of the Budget Act. 
Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.
  Are there any other amendments?


                    amendment offered by mr. nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The clerk read as follows:

       Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler: At the end of title IV 
     (page 43, after line 13), add the following new section (and 
     amend the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC.   . PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR CLOSURE OR 
                   REALIGNMENT OF COAST GUARD INSTALLATIONS.

       The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is 
     operating may not close or realign any Coast Guard 
     installation except in accordance with procedures set forth 
     in Public Law 101-510.

  Mr. NADLER (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 York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides that the Secretary 
may not close or realign any Coast Guard installation except in 
accordance with the procedures set forth in Public Law 101-510, which 
is to say except in accordance with the procedures utilized by the Base 
Closure Commission. This amendment would ensure that decisions 
regarding which installation of the Coast Guard may be closed in the 
future would be fair and impartial by requiring they be made according 
to the procedures that we have established for the Defense base closure 
and realignment by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act. We 
have established an independent commission to determine military base 
closures. This has achieved its purpose of providing a fair process 
that preserves the national interests and safety while affording 
fairness to affected regions. The same procedure is equally relevant 
and necessary if we are going to embark upon a course of closing Coast 
Guard installations to ensure a good Federal policy and fairness to 
different regions.
  Mr. Chairman, as we streamline Government, we must maintain maritime 
safety, and we should use fair and impartial procedures to determine 
which Coast Guard bases are appropriate to close or realign, and I 
believe that the existing Base Closure and Realignment Commission could 
undertake this additional duty without a greater additional cost. So I 
submit this amendment, and I ask its enactment.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Nadler] would not allow the Coast Guard to close or realign any 
Coast Guard installation except in accordance with the procedure of the 
Base Closing Act, and I say to the gentleman, ``Mr. Nadler, I may be 
mistaken, but I don't believe the Base Closing Act extends its 
jurisdiction to Coast Guard facilities, No. 1, and, No. 2, I want to 
reiterate again, I favor giving the Coast Guard the flexibility to deal 
with search and rescue station closures, to reallocate resources 
appropriately, and I think that what the gentleman from New York is 
doing now is to, perhaps, attempt to do indirectly what has been failed 
earlier today.''
  I therefore, Mr. Chairman, oppose the amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for his efforts, but I 
reluctantly, too, have to oppose this amendment.
  Let me say this amendment would, in fact, place jurisdiction subject 
to this committee into a whole other legislative jurisdictional 
authority and would complicate severely the business at hand by our 
committee to provide such jurisdiction over the Coast Guard.
  I am willing to work with the gentleman on the problems that he has, 
but I believe with this, and I have to agree with the chairman, it 
would not be in the best interests of the Congress and this committee, 
and, with that I reluctantly----
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the sentiment expressed by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] in his willingness to work with me 
in seeking to attain the aim of fairness and adequate consideration of 
closure of major facilities, and I must say that I did not intend this 
amendment, Mr. Coble, to apply to small boat stations. I had in mind 
major facilities such as the Coast Guard station on Governors Island 
and other such major facilities which are really analogous to major 
military bases and, I think, should get analogous treatment, and I 
certainly would not want to tamper with the committee's jurisdiction, 
the jurisdiction of the committee on which I sit.
  So I would look forward to working with the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Coble] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] to 
work out this question to afford a fairer way of determining which 
major installations should be closed, if any, in a fair and impartial 
manner and with the assurances that they would be willing to work on 
this.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tauzin

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tauzin: At the end of title IV 
     (page 43, after line 13), add the following new section (and 
     amend the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC.   . AMOUNT OF FEE FOR INSPECTION OR EXAMINATION OF SMALL 
                   PASSENGER VESSELS.

       (a) Amount of Fee.--Section 2110 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(k) The amount of any fee under this title for inspection 
     or examination of a small passenger vessel may not exceed--
       ``(1) in the case of a vessel under 65 feet in length, 
     $300; or
       ``(2) in the case of a vessel 65 or more feet in length, 
     $600.''.
       (b) Increase in Fee.--The Secretary of the Department in 
     which the Coast Guard is operating shall increase the amount 
     of the fee charged by the Coast Guard for inpection or 
     examination of large, luxury foreign-flag cruise ships under 
     title 46, United States Code, in an amount adequate to offset 
     any reduction in the total amount received by the United 
     States in the form of such fee as a result of the amendment 
     made by subsection (a).

  Mr. TAUZIN (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 
Louisiana?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1730


                             Point of Order

  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman from Louisiana has 
offered an amendment that violates rule XXI, clause 5(b), because the 
increase of fees to foreign cruise vessels is not related to the cost 
of providing the service of the Coast Guard. It is not related to the 
cost of providng the service of Coast Guard inspections, and this, 
therefore, Mr. Chairman, is no longer a fee but a tax.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Louisiana wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment provides for capping the fees that are 
assessed for inspecting small vessels at 
[[Page H4594]] $300 and $600, more closely related to the actual cost 
of inspecting these small vessels, and requiring the Coast Guard 
instead to assess, whenever the money is required to cap, these fees on 
the larger foreign cruise ships.
  The problem is, of course, a budget one. We cannot put a cap on the 
fees on the low end unless we provide for collection of those same 
amounts on the high end of the scale.
  The problem is that there is a tax in this bill. The tax is on the 
small boat owners. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out two things to you: 
The first is that under the current fee schedule small boat owners are 
being ripped apart. In many cases the cost of inspection bears no 
relationship whatsoever to the time spent by the Coast Guard in 
inspecting those vessels.
  Let me illustrate for you. In Louisiana, Mr. and Mrs. Torres operate 
a small swamp tour boat, 25 feet in length. It is a small boat. They 
take passengers out to look at alligators. Twenty-five in length.
  The Coast Guard says that they are charging $87 an hour to inspect 
the vessels. But the Torreses, who went through an inspection that took 
less than an hour, it should not have taken more than that, were billed 
for $545 of expenses for that inspection under this fee schedule.
  In Galliano, LA, Mr. Jimmy Martin has three boats 85 feet in length. 
One of those boats was inspected for a total of one hour. He was not 
charged $87; he was charged $1,135. A similar case with Mr. Earl 
Griffin of Larose, LA, one of three boats inspected, each one 110 feet 
in length; the inspection took a little over 2 hours, $1,135.
  If there is a tax in this bill, it is a horrible confiscatory tax on 
small boat owners. But that is not the only problem. The other problem 
is that recently the Coast Guard initiated a program called streamlined 
inspections. Now, under that program, if you have a great safety 
record, if your record in the boat business is so spotless, you are 
allowed to self-inspect and to self-certify to the Coast Guard that you 
meet all these criteria. That is a new program initiated to save people 
money, to save the Coast Guard the trouble and time of inspection, to 
just inspect the boats that need inspection, in effect.
  Guess what? The Coast Guard is charging those boat owners the same 
price they charge other boat owners who they have to go out and 
inspect. They are calling it a cost of overseeing the self-inspection 
program.
  This is a mess, Mr. Chairman. The Coast Guard user fee is using 
people all right. It is using them to death. And I suggest this 
amendment is vital and needs to get passed.
  The gentleman says we are raising a tax by reallocating these user 
fees. We are not raising a tax. All we are doing is stopping this awful 
confiscatory tax on the smaller boat owners. What this amendment says 
is that the inspection fees ought to be capped at something reasonably 
related to the real cost and the time of inspection: $300 for a boat 
under 65 feet, $600 for a boat over 65 fee. That makes sense. For the 
Coast Guard to assess a $1,135 fee for less than an hour's worth of 
inspection, to assess a fee on those who self-inspected under a good-
faith streamlined policy provision we adopted last year, is ridiculous.
  Mr. Chairman, we ought to pass this amendment. You ought to rule 
against this point of order if for no other reason than the amendment 
makes such good sense.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I understand the position taken by the 
chairman of the subcommittee, and because of the tax implications I 
believe there probably exists technical points that speak to sustaining 
this point of order.
  But I would like to make this statement in lieu of that, and I 
believe that the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] is a very 
valuable Member of this Congress. I believe he struck on a point here 
that deserves the concerns of our committee. I would like to ask the 
chairman if in fact this is stricken by a point of order because of 
those technicalities, the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 did allow 
for an opportunity to exist that does fit into this strategy that is 
offered by this legislation, perhaps we could visit that issue and see 
if we can mitigate some of those problems, because I think Mr. Tauzin 
makes an awful lot of sense.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I think the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] raises a good point. I think the gentleman 
and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and I can visit this and 
perhaps bring the appropriate Coast Guard officials to the table. If 
what the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] says is accurate, and I 
have no reason to doubt it, some redress is in order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I am a bit puzzled as to how we can rule 
that the Coast Guard, in levying a confiscatory tax--that is, a boat 
operator in the southern part of my district last year was assessed one 
fee for five boats, and this year was assessed, because the Coast Guard 
person had to travel there, he did not think that was unreasonable, 
this year he was assessed five fees for the five boats as though five 
separate trips had been made and those were done in one trip. I am a 
bit puzzled how it can be that we are confronted with a confiscatory 
tax, which has been unilaterally imposed by the Coast Guard, and yet in 
this case when we are attempting--but it is being justified as a user 
fee--when we are attempting to adjust the user fee under the 
gentleman's amendment, we are determining it is a tax and we are out of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin]. I 
would hope that my friend from North Carolina would reflect upon his 
raising of this point of order.
  I have for a long time been expressing my own concerns about the 
proposed user fees for inspection and examination of commercial 
vessels. The final rule was issued by the Department of Transportation 
on March 18. Despite the fact that the department spent 3.5 years on 
this rulemaking, I do not believe that it has adequately addressed the 
concerns of the small businesses. In February 1992 as the department 
began the rulemaking process, I, and others, expressed concerns to the 
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation about user fee proposals 
that were disproportionately high for small vessel operators.
  The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], from his own constituency 
in Louisiana, has mentioned fees that went over $1,000 for the 
inspection of small vessels. Small business cannot tolerate, that.
  Over the past few years this has continued to be a priority for me 
and I know for the committee. It certainly has been a priority, Mr. 
Chairman, for many of the charter boat operators in my own State of 
Maryland and my district. My district, as the gentleman knows, is 
bordered by the Chesapeake Bay and the Potomac River, two of the great 
waterways of our country, and there are many small vessels in southern 
Maryland that are owned and operated by small businesses. Some are 
family operations, as the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble] 
knows, that have passed down through the generations.
  Mr. Chairman, it makes sense to limit the amount that these small 
businesses and family-operated operations would pay for their 
inspections. We are not against inspections, but we want to have a 
reasonable fee to effect them.
  On May 2, I joined with the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], 
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], and the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. LoBiondo] in reiterating our concern about this issue. In a 
letter to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble], we noted the 
Coast Guard has indicated its fee for inspection is about $87 an hour. 
Mr. Tauzin has referenced how quickly that $87 becomes $587 and then 
$1,087. Yet small vessel operators are being 
[[Page H4595]] asked to pay hundreds of dollars for inspections that 
take less than 1 hour.
  I regret the committee did not address this issue. The chairman 
happens to be a very close friend of mine, and I have great respect for 
him. I know he cares about this issue. I know that he feels constrained 
under the rules to raise this point of order, but, Mr. Chairman, if you 
have to press the point of order, and I would hope you might 
reconsider, but if you cannot reconsider, I certainly would hope very 
seriously that you would take the recommendation of my friend from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant], and that we pursue this vigorously, so that in the 
very near future, on one bill or another, we can fix this.
  We talk about small businesses, we talk about decreasing regulation, 
we talk about cutting taxes. Here is a specific example of where we are 
driving small businesses out of business, family-owned sole 
proprietorships out of business, because they cannot pay it. This is 
almost confiscatory.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to join with Representative Tauzin in expressing 
my concern about the proposed user fees for inspection and examination 
of commercial vessels.
  The final rule was issued by the Department of Transportation on 
March 18. Despite the fact that the department spent 3\1/2\ years on 
this rulemaking, I do not believe that it has adequately addressed the 
concerns of small businesses.
  In February 1992, as the department began the rulemaking process, I 
expressed concern to the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation 
about user fee proposals that were disproportionately high for small 
vessel operators.
  Over the past few years, this has continued to be a priority for me 
and many of the charter boat operators in my district. Maryland's Fifth 
Congressional District is bordered by two of our Nation's great 
waterways--the Chesapeake Bay and the Potomac River.
  I regret that the committee did not address this issue in the 
reauthorization bill. I support the concept of asking those who rely on 
the Coast Guard to help pay for its services and I remain strongly 
committed to the Coast Guard's safety inspection program. However, Mr. 
Chairman, I do not believe that we can ask small vessel operators to 
pay more than their share.
  Mr. Tauzin's amendment places a cap on fees to ensure that they are 
not excessive. I commend him for bringing this issue to the floor and I 
hope that all Members will recognize the importance of protecting 
charter boat and other small vessel operators.
  On May 2, I joined with Representatives Tauzin, Gilchrest, and 
LoBiondo in reiterating our concern about this issue. In a letter to 
Chairman Coble, we noted that the Coast Guard has indicated that its 
fee for inspections is about $87 per hour. Yet small vessel operators 
are being asked to pay hundreds of dollars for inspections that take 
less than an hour.
  There are many small vessels in southern Maryland that are owned and 
operated by small businesses. Some are family operations that have 
passed down through the generations.
  Mr. Chairman, it makes sense to limit the amount that these small 
businesses would pay for their inspections.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble] wish 
to be heard further on the point of order?
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I may be twisting it procedurally, but let 
me plow along.
  Mr. Chairman, what I would say to my friend, the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] is this: I feel obliged to insist 
upon my point of order. But I commend my friend, the gentleman from 
Youngstown, OH [Mr. Traficant], and my friend from the Bayou, the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], did not hear me when I said this 
earlier, but I said in response to what the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Traficant] said, if what you indicate is true, and I have no reason to 
doubt it, redress is needed. This needs to be corralled.
  I would say to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], assuming I 
got a favorable ruling from the Chair, we will make that happen as far 
as getting with the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], and I, and hopefully pursue a 
course that will be beneficial.
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield, I thank him for his 
consideration. I know all of us would. I thank the chairman for his 
consideration. I would hope that we did not have the point of order. 
Again, if we feel we have to do that, I am pleased we will pursue it in 
another forum.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dickey). The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from North Carolina makes a point of order against the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana on the ground that it 
carries a tax measure in a bill reported by a committee--the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure--not having jurisdiction to report 
tax measures, in violation of clause 5(b) of rule XXI.
  Current law authorizes the collection of certain user fees to cover 
the costs to the Coast Guard of various vessel inspections. The 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana proposes to limit 
some of those fees and, as an offset, to increase another such fee. In 
doing so, the amendment destroys the character of the increased levy as 
a user fee.
  By increasing the fee charged by the Coast Guard for inspecting 
large, luxury, foreign-flag cruise ships by whatever amount is 
necessary to offset specified reductions in the fees charged for 
inspecting other vessels, the amendment attenuates the relationship 
between the amount of the increased fee and the cost of the particular 
government activity for which it is assessed.
  Under the precedents recorded in section 846b of the House Rules and 
Manual, a fee that is calculated in an amount that is not merely 
commensurate with the cost of the governmental activities that the 
class of assessed parties make necessary, but instead is collected as a 
proxy for general revenue financing of general governmental activity of 
broader benefit, may constitute a tax or tariff within the meaning of 
clause 5(b) of rule XXI.
  The Chair finds that the proposed increase in the fee charged for 
inspecting cruise ships overcollects for the costs of the governmental 
activities occasioned by the parties on whom it is assessed to such a 
degree that it is properly characterized as a tax or tariff under the 
rule.
  Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.
                              {time}  1745

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I particularly want to address these comments to my 
good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble], with whom I 
have worked many, many years on Coast Guard matters and for whom I have 
the deepest personal high regards.
  I wanted to first of all commend him for recognizing the serious 
problem and for his commitment to work with me and others to see if we 
cannot address it in this or some other forum. This bill is not 
finished. It goes to the Senate. It goes through a conference, and 
there may be an opportunity somewhere along the way for us to fix this 
mess. It may be that we have to do it in some other bill.
  I want to commend the gentleman for working with me. I would 
encourage him to hold a hearing so we can hear from people around the 
country about the real effects of this fee schedule.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from Louisiana, I 
thank him for that. I can pretty well assure the gentleman that the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] and I and perhaps others on the 
subcommittee and full committee will meet with the gentleman. And 
thinking aloud, I say to the gentleman from Louisiana, a hearing might 
not be a bad course to pursue. In fact, I think it would probably be a 
good course to pursue.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. While I brought up 
the case of my friend in Kraemer, LA who does the swamp tours, I want 
to remind Members that not all the alligators in America live in the 
swamps of Louisiana. This is a bad piece of regulation, 
[[Page H4596]] and I think we have got some alligators to deal with 
until we wrestle it to the ground.
  With the gentleman's help, I think we can do it. I thank him for his 
commitment today on the floor of the House.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there 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. 
LaTourette) having assumed the chair, Mr. Dickey, 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. 1361) to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1996 for the Coast Guard, and 
for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 139, 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. COBLE. 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 406, 
nays 12, not voting 16, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 309]

                               YEAS--406

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                                NAYS--12

     Christensen
     Duncan
     Ensign
     Foley
     Hancock
     Johnson, Sam
     Klug
     Pallone
     Ramstad
     Royce
     Sanford
     Sensenbrenner

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bilbray
     Brown (CA)
     Chapman
     Collins (MI)
     DeLauro
     Durbin
     Gunderson
     Jefferson
     Miller (CA)
     Moakley
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Rogers
     Scarborough
     Studds
     Zimmer

                              {time}  1809

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

                          ____________________