[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 62 (Tuesday, May 7, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4804-S4807]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Santorum, Mr. 
        D'Amato, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Coverdell):
  S. 1729. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect 
to stalking; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


     the interstate stalking punishment and prevention act of 1996

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to 
strengthen the protections our society offers to stalking victims, 
those individuals whose stories we so often hear only after they end in 
tragedy.
  My bill would make it a felony for a stalker to cross State lines 
with the intention of injuring or harassing the victim. It would make 
it a felony to place a stalking victim in reasonable fear of death or 
serious bodily injury in violation of a protective order by such 
travel. And it extends that protection of law to members of a victim's 
immediate family as well.
  Freedom from fear is one of the most cherished advantages we are 
supposed to enjoy in our country, but stalking victims have been robbed 
of that freedom.
  Their victimization is made worse because currently, restraining 
orders against stalkers issued in one State cannot be enforced in 
another State. If the victim leaves the State--to work, to travel, to 
escape--they lose their protection. Many times victims are told to put 
some distance between themselves and their stalker, perhaps they are 
even counseled to move far away.
  Under such circumstances, stalking victims must go through the time-
consuming process of obtaining another restraining order in a different 
jurisdiction. We all know the wheels of justice grind slowly. Time is 
what many stalking victims don't have. In such situations, time is what 
determines whether they live or die.
  The legislation I am introducing today will give stalking victims 
that time they need. It will protect victims regardless of where they 
go. Victims will no longer be trapped in their own states in order to 
benefit from the shelter of law. In addition, this bill allows the 
resources of the FBI to be applied against interstate stalkers to 
prevent the intimidation of victims, or their coming to actual harm.
  Just as importantly, this legislation goes beyond last year's 
domestic violence legislation by expanding the definition of a stalking 
victim from offender's spouse or intimate partner to simply victim. 
Many people are stalked by someone other than a spouse or intimate 
partner, often someone they know only slightly or don't know at all. 
Common sense tells us they need protection as much as those stalked by 
a spouse or romantic partner. This provision alone would double the 
protection we now can provide stalking victims.
  Mr. President, I want to make it clear to my colleagues that we are 
not federalizing the crime of stalking. Stalking is and will remain a 
State crime, subject to State jurisdiction and

[[Page S4805]]

sanction. But under the bill I am proposing, if a stalker crosses State 
lines, then Federal resources can be brought to bear to ensure the 
stalker is caught and stopped, the same protection we provided last 
year for victims of domestic violence.
  The legislation also protects victims who live or work on Federal 
property: military bases, post offices, national parks, and other 
locations
  This bill sends an unmistakable message. Its penalty provisions are 
stiff. We will be putting predators on notice that if they are 
convicted of crossing State lines to stalk a victim, they risk: 5 years 
in prison; 10 years if their victim comes to serious harm or if a 
dangerous weapon is used; 20 years if stalking results in permanent 
disfigurement or life-threatening injury; or life in prison if their 
victim dies.
  Mr. President, this bill bridges the gap between law enforcement 
authorities in different States. It will allow us to stop stalkers who 
might otherwise duck under the net when they cross State lines, doing 
great damage to their victims.
  If our society is serious about stopping the intimidation and actual 
injury that result from stalking in countless communities every day, 
this law is long overdue.
                                 ______

      By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Lautenberg, and 
        Mr. Pell):
  S. 1730. A bill to amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to make the 
act more effective in preventing oil pollution in the Nation's waters 
through enhanced prevention of, and improved response to, oilspills, 
and to ensure that citizens and communities injured by oilspills are 
promptly and fully compensated, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.


          the oilspill prevention and response improvement act

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill entitled the 
``Oilspill Prevention and Response Improvement Act.''
  As its name suggests, the bill has two purposes. First, it will help 
to prevent oilspills. Second, it will improve the response to the 
environmental and economic injuries from oilspills that do occur. It 
does this by increasing access to funds and by providing measures to 
make sure that both types of injuries are redressed.
  Before getting into the substance of the bill in more detail, let me 
describe briefly how it came to be.
  Generally speaking, the bill is a response to lessons learned from a 
number of recent oilspills that have spurred requests for oil pollution 
reforms. Of these spills, the one of most interest to me occurred a 
little over 3 months ago when a barge, the North Cape, ran aground just 
off of the coast of my State of Rhode Island. Despite valiant efforts 
by the Coast Guard and others, the grounding resulted in the largest 
oilspill in Rhode Island's history.
  By the time the leak was contained, nearly 800,000 gallons of oil had 
poured into our coastal waters. Of course, much of the spilled oil 
ended up on our beaches, along with the carcasses of many fish, birds, 
and thousands of lobsters.
  As chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over oil pollution--
Environment and Public Works--I convened the committee twice to examine 
Federal oil pollution legislation in light of the North Cape incident 
and the other recent oilspills.
  The first time was for a field hearing that took place in 
Narragansett, RI. It examined the Nation's oilspill pollution laws in 
the context of how they operated during the North Cape spill. The 
principal law we evaluated was the Oil Pollution Act, better known as 
OPA, which was enacted in 1990, after the infamous Exxon Valdez spill.
  The second hearing in Washington, DC, took a broader approach. It 
looked at the issues raised during the Rhode Island hearing and 
assessed the possibility of improving OPA to prevent and better respond 
to oilspills.
  In these hearings we learned that, overall, OPA is working pretty 
well. In comparing a similar oil spill that occurred in Rhode Island 
waters in 1989, the World Prodigy spill, with this year's North Cape 
spill, the hard work of Rhode Islanders was evident in both cases. 
However, such efforts clearly met with better results in the North Cape 
spill. The difference was OPA.
  The clear consensus of all witnesses who testified before the 
Environment and Public Works Committee is that OPA is a valuable piece 
of legislation. It has produced faster and more effective spill 
responses throughout the last 6 years.
  Nevertheless, there is room for improvement. On the prevention side, 
for example, several witnesses suggested how OPA can be strengthened so 
that we can avoid having to respond to an oilspill at all. The general 
consensus was that equipping oil-carrying tank vessels with double 
hulls is far and away the best way to prevent oilspills.
  The other set of issues that emerged related to response. For 
example, agencies have struggled to coordinate and agree on how to 
proceed with decisions related to the reopening of closed fishing 
grounds. Lobstermen and fishermen have found it difficult to secure 
short-term financial assistance under the act. Finally, questions have 
been raised about the availability of the $1 billion oilspill liability 
trust fund to pay for the toll on fish and wildlife injured by a spill.
  The issues raised during our hearings set the stage for the bill 
introduced today. Let me now explain how the bill addresses these 
issues and how it improves prevention and response to oilspills.
  First, the bill reduces the likelihood that oilspills will occur in 
the future. It does so through the use of both carrots, or incentives, 
and sticks, or regulations.
  On the incentive side, the bill recognizes the key role of double 
hulls in spill prevention. Indeed, this is why OPA mandates that all 
major vessels be double-hulled no later than the year 2015. But the 
bill also recognizes that converting the Nation's oil-carrying fleet 
will be costly.
  The bill gets around financial concerns by providing an inducement to 
those operators who take the initiative and convert to double hulls 
before the mandate kicks in. Currently, there is a cap in OPA 
establishing a ceiling on the amount of liability for a vessel that 
spills oil. However, there are a host of exceptions to that limit, 
which has led some oil shippers to assert that the liability cap is 
meaningless. This bill greatly reduces the chances that an oil carrier 
who converts to a double-hull vessel will have to pay more than the 
liability cap established in OPA. It does this by limiting the 
conditions under which the cap can be exceeded for such an operator to 
those in which the operator has been grossly negligent or has engaged 
in willful misconduct.

  The bill directs the Coast Guard to issue operational rules within 
the next 3 months and structural rules within the next 8 months for 
single-hulled tankers and barges. It also requires final rules to be 
issued for the tug boats that tow such barges. The purpose of these 
rules is to enhance protection of the marine environment by reducing 
the likelihood of an oilspill.
  OPA as originally enacted required the Coast Guard to issue the rules 
for tankers and barges nearly 5 years ago. This bill says: Enough is 
enough when it comes to delay. If the Coast Guard does not get out the 
rules when it says it will, interim prevention measures such as 
requiring a vessel to have an operable anchor and man on board, or an 
emergency barge retrieval system, will automatically go into effect. In 
addition, minimum under-keel clearances also will be required.
  On the response side, the bill will reduce the economic hardship and 
environmental damage caused by a spill. To limit financial injury, for 
example, it requires that advance procedures are developed for the 
reopening of affected fishing grounds. These procedures will make sure 
that such reopening occurs as quickly as possible consistent with 
public health and safety. Advanced planning also will ensure that 
bureaucratic in-fighting does not hold up reopening.
  To mitigate environmental harm, the bill provides greater access to 
the oilspill liability trust fund, to information, and to scientific 
expertise. This will allow response personnel to better minimize harm 
to the marine environment in the aftermath of a spill.
  Finally, the bill will help make financial assistance available right 
away for those whose livelihoods are affected by a spill. It achieves 
this purpose in two ways.
  First, it makes clear that a person injured by a spill may receive a 
partial

[[Page S4806]]

settlement in the short term without waiving the right to full 
compensation. Injured parties will no longer have to wait before 
pursuing a claim while their rent and grocery bills pile up.
  Second, the bill allows major oilspills to be declared major 
disasters and thus, to qualify for Federal major disaster relief. Such 
relief carries with it the availability of immediate funding.
  Overall then, the Oilspill Prevention and Response Improvement Act 
builds on the successes of OPA, yet it addresses the lessons learned 
from OPA's shortcomings. While the bill puts tougher prevention 
measures in place, it also gives operators the necessary incentives to 
take such measures. And in the event an oilspill does occur, it creates 
a response scheme that truly addresses economic and environmental 
losses.
  The bill also reflects an attempt to respond to calls to reform the 
Nation's oil pollution laws in an expeditious and effective, yet 
deliberate and precise, way. I am confident that the bill is broad 
enough to bring about meaningful reform yet narrow enough to enlist the 
support necessary to become law.
  In closing, I would like to thank the two primary cosponsors of the 
bill, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut and Senator Lautenberg of New 
Jersey. Both of these colleagues of mine on the Environment and Public 
Works Committee have worked diligently with me to make it a better 
product.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators 
Chafee and Lieberman in introducing legislation to reduce the risks of 
oil spills.
  Mr. President, as the terrible Exxon Valdez incident demonstrated in 
1989, oil spills can have disastrous consequences for our environment 
and our communities. I visited Alaska soon after the Exxon Valdez 
accident, and the devastation was overwhelming. Nobody could leave that 
site without feeling a great sense of responsibility for preventing any 
similar disasters.
  Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to prevent a recurrence 
of similar disasters. Among other things, the act established tough new 
standards for vessels carrying oil. Under the act, all such vessels 
must have double hulls by the year 2015. In addition, the Act required 
the Coast Guard to issue regulations to improve the seaworthiness and 
spill prevention capabilities of single hull vessels by 1991.
  Mr. President, on March 30, 1996, the Environment and Public Works 
Committee held a hearing on the implementation of this Act. What we 
learned was very discouraging. The structural requirements for single 
hull regulations are 4 years overdue. The Coast Guard, despite 
admitting that it had sufficient funds to implement that requirement, 
could not give the Committee a rationale for the delay.
  The recent spills of single hull tankers point to the need for better 
operations and better structural measures to reduce oil spills.
  The bill we are introducing today will require several common-sense 
improvements on single hull ships. These improvements include:

       Requiring that barges over 5,000 gross tons in the open 
     ocean or coastal waters have at least one crew member on 
     board and an operable anchor;
       Requiring the presence of an emergency system on a vessel 
     towing a barge that would allow the vessel to retrieve the 
     barge should the tow line be ruptured; and
       Requiring vessels to meet minimum under-keel clearance 
     levels when entering or leaving a port.

  In addition, the bill will require the Coast Guard to issue final 
regulations to improve the seaworthiness and spill prevention 
capabilities of single-hull vessels no later than July 18, 1996; 5 
years after the original deadline. If the regulations are not 
promulgated by that date, then proposed regulations already developed 
by the Coast Guard would automatically become effective. These proposed 
regulations would require all vessels to have double-hulls on their 
sizes or their bottoms. Alternatively, vessels could include 
hydrostatic loading systems, which help prevent spills by equalizing 
the pressure of the oil on the vessel with the outside water pressure. 
Under hydrostatic loading, in the case of a rupture, water enters the 
ship rather than the cargo of oil entering the ocean.
  In addition, the bill includes incentives to convert the present 
single-hull fleet to the safer double-hull vessels. Under the bill, any 
ship that is replaced by a double-hull vessel before double-hulls are 
required will be subject to a liability cap that can only be waived if 
there is gross negligence or willful misconduct.
  Mr. President, anyone who saw the devastation of Prince William 
Sound--such an invaluable natural resource--will understand the 
importance of preventing oil spills in the future. This is true not 
just in Alaska, but also on the Delaware River, in New York Harbor, and 
in the Rhode Island Sound, and throughout our rivers and coasts.
  The rivers and channels around my State of New Jersey are very 
vulnerable to spills. Because of inadequate channel depths, most of the 
crude oil in large ships moving into the Port of Newark must be 
transferred to smaller vessels, a practice called lightering. These 
transfers at sea between ships increase the likelihood of spills. It is 
only the exceptional abilities of the pilots serving the Port of New 
York and New Jersey that have prevented repeated spills in our region.
  Nevertheless, lightering increases the threat of frequent oilspills. 
To reduce that threat, the bill requires the Coast Guard to develop 
requirements for lightering operations that are to provide substantial 
protection to the environment as is economically and technologically 
feasible.
  Mr. President, the Committee on Environment and Public Works will 
hold hearings on this legislation this year. I look forward to working 
with Senators Chafee and Lieberman, and the other members of the 
Committee, to make any needed refinements in the legislation, and to 
approve the bill without delay.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, earlier this year I shared with my 
colleagues news on what has been identified as the worst oilspill in 
Rhode Island's history.
  That January spill was the genesis for the legislation that I am 
joining the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee] in introducing 
today.
  As many of you may know from news accounts, the barge North Cape, 
carrying a cargo of about 4 million gallons of heating oil, and the tug 
Scandia grounded off the southern Rhode Island coast.
  The grounding followed a fire that broke out on the tug, later 
engulfed the vessel and required the subsequent last-minute evacuation 
of the captain and crew by the U.S. Coast Guard.
  That evacuation was successful because of the enormous courage and 
skill of the Coast Guard rescue team, who did not hesitate to put 
themselves at great personal risk to rescue the captain and crew.
  It was under extraordinarily difficult winter storm conditions that 
the Coast Guard effected the rescue and attempted, unsuccessfully, to 
prevent the barge and burning tug from running aground. The barge, 
dragging the burning tug, grounded in shallow water off Matunuck Point 
Beach, near Point Judith.
  Pounded by strong winds and high seas, the 340-foot, single-hull 
barge began to spill oil from holes in at least two places.
  Transportation Secretary Frederico Pena joined me and other Federal 
officials in Rhode Island to evaluate the spill, as efforts continued 
to contain the escaping oil and off-load what oil remained aboard the 
barge.
  Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Almond called for Federal help, declared a 
state of emergency and said the spill was ``the worst in Rhode Island's 
history and one of the worst ever off the coast of New England.''
  The toll on marine life was heavy. Thousands of oil-coated lobsters, 
dead and living, washed up along several hundred yards of beach near 
the barge.
  Dozens of seabirds died and scores more were coated in oil and their 
habitats fouled.
  The barge grounded close to Moonstone Beach, a breeding ground for 
the endangered piping plover and the Turstom Pond National Wildlife 
Refuge, an environmentally fragile habitat.
  Fishing was banned in hundreds of square miles, from Point Judith 
south to waters east of Block Island. In addition a number of 
shellfishing areas were closed and both took a long time to reopen.
  The good news is that Rhode Islanders rose to the occasion. Hundreds 
of Rhode Islanders, their efforts coordinated by Save the Bay, helped 
by

[[Page S4807]]

cleaning everything from beaches to birds.
  Additional good news came with a phone call from President Clinton to 
Governor Almond, assuring him that funds would be made available for 
the cleanup and fishing industries.
  Mr. President, I raised a number of questions at the time and 
observed how unfortunate it was that the barge was not of the new 
double hulled design, which I have long advocated.
  I understand that the barge leaked from 9 of its 14 containment 
holds. A double-hull might have made all the difference between an 
incident and a disaster.
  At the time, I also observed that everyone would benefit from a 
thorough review of the coordination of our emergency response to 
oilspills.
  The bill we are introducing today is a result of such an inquiry, 
conducted by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under 
Senator Chafee's excellent leadership.
  Our bill offers insurance incentives for oil barge owners who 
expedite conversion of their barges to double-hulled vessels. It also 
sets a deadline for the U.S. Coast Guard to issue new standards for oil 
barge design and operation.
  The bill requires oil barges to have crews and workable anchors or a 
retrieval mechanism. It gives oilspill victims and scientists easier 
access to the oilspill liability trust fund and sets standards for the 
closing and reopening of fishing grounds after a spill.
  Although it is not a panacea and will not prevent future oilspills, 
our bill goes a long way toward improving the safety of oil barges and 
setting a clear course for the response when a spill does occur. As we 
all know, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. 
This bill codifies what we have learned and lessens the chance that the 
tragedy that struck us in January will be repeated.
                                 ______

      By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Bennett and Mr. Bryan):
  S. 1731. A bill to reauthorize and amend the National Geologic 
Mapping Act of 1992, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.


       The National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1996

 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, my purpose here today is to 
introduce on behalf of myself and my cosponsors Senators Bryan and 
Bennett, a bill to reauthorize the highly successful National Geologic 
Mapping Act of 1992. The act established a cooperative geologic mapping 
program among the U.S. Geological Survey, State geological surveys, and 
geological programs at institutions of higher education in the United 
States. The goal of this program is to accelerate and improve the 
efficiency of detailed geologic mapping of critical areas in the Nation 
by coordinating and using the combined talents of the three 
participating groups.
  Detailed geologic mapping is an indispensable source of information 
for a broad range of societal activities and benefits, including the 
delineation and protection of sources of safe drinking water; 
assessments of coal, petroleum, natural gas, construction materials, 
metals, and other natural resources; understanding the physical and 
biological interactions that define ecosystems, and that control, and 
are a measure of, environmental health; identification and mitigation 
of natural hazards such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, 
subsidence, and other ground failures; and many other resource and 
land-use planning requirements.
  Only about 20 percent of the Nation is mapped at a scale adequate to 
meet these critical needs. Additional high-priority areas for detailed 
geologic mapping have been identified at State level by State-map 
advisory committees, and include Federal, State, and local needs and 
priorities.
  Funding for the program is incorporated in the budget of the U.S. 
Geological Survey. State geological surveys and university participants 
receive funding from the program through a competitive proposal process 
that requires 1:1 matching funds from the applicant.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me to ensure the 
continued efficient collection and availability of this fundamental 
Earth-science information.

                          ____________________