[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 137 (Saturday, September 28, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11794-S11803]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1996--CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
immediately proceed to the consideration of the Senate conference
report to accompany S. 1004, the Coast Guard authorization.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee of conference of the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S.
1004) to authorize appropriations for the United States Coast
Guard, and for other purposes, having met, after full and
free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to
their respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of
the conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to
the consideration of the conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of September 27, 1996.)
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report
to S. 1004, the Coast Guard Authorization Act. As chairman of the
Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over oil
pollution issues, I am pleased to report that S. 1004 contains a number
of important improvements to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or OPA.
These improvements represent several solid steps forward in our ongoing
efforts to prevent oil spills from occurring in our Nation's waters and
to better respond to the oil spills that do occur.
I convened the Environment and Public Works Committee for a series of
hearings to address oil pollution issues earlier this year in response
to a number of major oil spills.
The spill of greatest interest to me, as you might imagine, happened
just off the coast of my home State of Rhode Island on January 19 of
this year. It occurred when a tug boat had a fire in rough seas and
eventually lost control of the barge it was towing, which was carrying
millions of gallons of home heating oil. The sad outcome was that the
barge, the North Cape, ran aground and spilled some 800,000 gallons of
oil into Block Island Sound.
The economic and environmental harm to my State from the spill was
extensive. Thousands of lobster carcasses washed up on our shores,
hundreds of birds were left dead or severely injured, and many who rely
upon the sea for their livelihood in the area were financially hurt,
some seriously.
The committee held a total of three hearings. The first of these was
held in Rhode Island so we could hear and learn from the people most
directly affected by the spill.
In our hearings we learned that, overall, OPA is working pretty well.
The clear consensus of all witnesses who testified during our hearings
is that OPA is a valuable piece of legislation that has helped to
produce faster and more effective spill responses throughout the last 6
years.
Nevertheless, there is room for improvement in the Act. On the
prevention side, for example, OPA can, and should, be strengthened so
that we can avoid having to respond to an oil spill at all. The recent
spills have only served to underscore the need for more effective
prevention measures. We also learned that our oil spill response
capabilities can, and should, be honed.
As a result, on May 7, I, along with Senators Lieberman and
Lautenberg, introduced S. 1730, the Oil Spill Prevention and Response
Improvement Act. Senator Pell also eventually became a cosponsor. As
its name implies, the bill has two major purposes: First, to prevent
oil spills from occurring; and second, to provide for a more effective
response to the oil spills that do occur.
On June 20, the Committee on Environment and Public Works voted 17 to
0 to report S. 1730. I am extremely gratified that the majority of the
provisions and issues addressed in S. 1730 as reported are contained in
the conference report before us today.
Let me now explain what these provisions are and the intent
underlying them.
ENHANCING OIL SPILL PREVENTION
There are two major provisions in the conference report that will
help prevent oil spills from single-hull oil-carrying barges. Both
provide for new rules to apply to such barges within 1 year, by October
1, 1997.
The first set of rules will require all single-hull oil-carrying
barges to have means to prevent grounding in the event of a problem at
sea. The required anti-grounding protection can take the form of an
operable anchor and crew
[[Page S11795]]
member on board the barge, an emergency barge retrieval system, or
comparable measures. These rules will prevent situations where barges
carry millions of gallons of oil through environmentally sensitive
waters without any kind of protection against grounding.
The second set of rules will require all vessels that tow oil-
carrying barges to have fire-suppression measures. Never again should
we be in a situation where the lives of crew members and a pristine
marine environment are at risk because a towing vessel does not have
the ability to suppress an on-board fire.
These new rules for single-hull tank barges and the vessels which tow
them are important. Although the best way to prevent spills from
vessels is to equip them with double hulls, it is quite expensive to
build a new double-hull vessel or to retrofit a single hull vessel with
a second hull.
Thus, in enacting OPA originally, Congress determined that all oil-
carrying vessels in U.S. waters ought eventually to have double hulls,
but that the oil transportation industry would need some time to make
the transition, given the expense involved. Congress directed the Coast
Guard to issue rules to help prevent oil spills from single hull
vessels during this transition period.
These rules were to have been issued within one year after OPA's
enactment--or by August 1991. Remarkably, however, by the time we held
our first hearing on OPA, the Coast Guard still had failed to issue the
rules, nearly five years after the mandatory statutory deadline.
This delay has undermined a key purpose of OPA, which is to reduce
spills from single-hull vessels pending their replacement with double-
hull vessels by the year 2015.
The Coast Guard finally issued one part of the required rules earlier
this summer. The rules prescribe operational measures for single-hull
tank vessels, which should prove valuable in helping to prevent oil
spills from such vessels.
But there is another important subset of rules on single-hull tank
vessels the Coast Guard still has not issued--those prescribing
structural measures to reduce spills from such vessels. During our
hearings, various high-level Coast Guard officials assured the
Committee repeatedly that such rules would be published by December
1996.
It is this Senator's firm expectation that the Coast Guard will be
true to its word and issue the rules on structural measures within the
next three months; 6\1/2\ years has been more than enough time for the
Coast Guard to adopt such measures. If the agency fails again to comply
with its mandate, then the Congress will have no choice but to consider
seriously taking up similar legislation again.
Let me add that one of the reasons the Coast Guard offered for being
so late in issuing the single-hull vessel rules is because of confusion
about the standard under which such rules are to be issued. That
standard, set forth in section 4115(b) of OPA, provides that such
measures are to ``provide as substantial protection to the environment
as is economically and technologically feasible.''
Although there admittedly is some room for interpretation in this, as
in any qualitative standard, let me state for the record a couple of
things that are absolutely clear about the congressional intent behind
section 4115(b). First, the standard is not to be read to require
adoption only of the measure or measures the Coast Guard determines are
the most cost-effective or cost-efficient. Rather, the standard makes
clear that all measures which satisfy its criteria are to be included
in the final rule.
The rulemaking should consider measures that prevent collision or
grounding of a tank vessel in addition to those that reduce oil outflow
after such a collision or grounding has occurred. Finally, due regard
ought to be taken of human safety, including the safety of crew members
and in particular those crew serving on affected tank barges.
In addition to providing for new rules, the conference report
includes a series of additional measures to address specific oil spill
prevention concerns raised by recent spills in the Northeast.
For example, after the North Cape spill, Governor Almond of Rhode
Island convened a task force to examine the economic and environmental
implications of dredging the State's waterways. The conference report
directs the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to review the task force's
study and to submit recommendations concerning the feasibility and
environmental effects of such dredging.
The conference report further directs the Secretary of
Transportation, in cooperation with the Marine Board, to examine the
incidence and risk of spills from lightering, a process by which oil is
transferred from one vessel to another. This examination is to evaluate
the adequacy of existing rules to prevent spills from lightering
operations. It should examine not only how lightering is practiced, but
also where lightering is done and the extent to which sensitive
environmental areas may be at risk under current rules.
The conference report also directs the Secretary to assess the role
of automatic fueling shutoff equipment in preventing the actual or
threatened discharge of oil during fuel loading or off-loading
activity.
IMPROVING OIL SPILL RESPONSE MEASURES
Notwithstanding the best efforts of those of us in Government and in
the industry, a certain number of oil spills probably are inevitable.
Consequently, the conference report contains important advances that
will improve our ability to respond more effectively to spills that
still occur.
It does so by reducing and redressing the economic hardship and
environmental damage that is caused once a spill has taken place.
On the economic side, the conference report includes a key provision
of the bill I introduced in the spring, S. 1730, which will ensure that
injured parties are able to obtain financial relief in the immediate
aftermath of a spill. After the North Cape spill, some lobstermen and
fishermen were reluctant to pursue compensation for short-term damages
for fear of waiving any rights to future compensation. This reluctance
at times led to significant hardship, as most fishermen and lobstermen
are self-employed, and thus, do not qualify for unemployment benefits.
To address this troubling situation, the conference report makes
clear that a person injured by a spill may bring a claim for less than
the full amount of damages to which he may be entitled, without waiving
the right to future compensation. Thanks to this clarification,
fishermen put out of work will no longer have to wait while their rent
and grocery bills pile up before pursuing a claim. And small businesses
such as fish markets that depend on the marine environment will not be
forced out of business while awaiting compensation for their injuries.
The responsible party may establish reasonable parameters within
which claims for partial, interim damages may be presented to avoid
undue transaction costs, consistent with avoiding financial hardship to
parties injured by a spill.
On the environmental response side, the conference report improves
OPA by encouraging better advanced planning. It also fosters rapid
availability to important new information and expertise in the wake of
a spill.
First of all, the report clarifies that the owner or operator
carrying out the response must follow the National Contingency Plan
unless the President or On-Scene Coordinator determines that deviation
would bring about a faster or more effective response.
Second, the report provides for a national clearinghouse to compile
and disseminate information on the environmental effects of oil spills.
This information clearinghouse will distribute up-to-the-minute
knowledge to response personnel on how best to mitigate the
environmental effects of particular spills.
Some of this information undoubtedly will derive from another
provision in the conference report, which directs the Secretary of
Transportation to study the environmental and public health risks from
discharges of group-5 fuel oil.
Finally, area contingency plans will now be required to include the
names of local scientists with expertise in the environmental effects
of oil spills. This requirement will ensure that response officials may
avail themselves quickly of expertise available in the spill area,
[[Page S11796]]
in particular with respect to the local marine environment.
CHANGES TO SECTION 1016 REGARDING ENSURING EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY
Section 1125 of the conference report modifies OPA's financial
responsibility requirements.
These requirements mandate that vessels and oil-related facilities
demonstrate evidence of access to financial resources that will cover
the likely costs of cleanup and damages in the event of a spill. In
this way they provide a guarantee that money will be available to
finance all or most of the cleanup and damages. An entity may satisfy
this requirement by entering into a contract with a guarantor, usually
in the insurance industry, who agrees to be subject to claims for
cleanup costs and damages up to a designated amount in the event of a
spill.
There are at least two important purposes served by these
requirements: First, they ensure that the polluter--not the U.S.
taxpayer--bears the financial burdens resulting from oil pollution.
Second, they ensure that claims will be presented and resolved promptly
without subjecting claimants, especially injured individuals and small
businesses, to protracted and expensive litigation.
Modifications to amount of financial responsibility required for
offshore facilities
The conference report brings the amount of financial responsibility
required of offshore facilities under OPA more into line with common
sense and the original intent of Congress. It will allow us to avoid
imposing undue and unintended economic burdens while also ensuring that
the interests of the environment and the parties financially injured by
a spill will continue to be protected.
The conference report does three things in this regard.
First, it corrects an unjustifiably broad interpretation of OPA by
the Department of the Interior. That interpretation would apply the
financial responsibility requirements for offshore facilities to
traditional onshore facilities like land-based oil terminals and
marinas.
We have many such onshore facilities in my State of Rhode Island and
throughout the country. They never were intended to be subject to OPA's
financial responsibility requirements for offshore facilities, even if
they have certain appurtenances that extend onto submerged land. The
report serves to make our original intent unmistakably clear.
Second, the conference report exempts from financial responsibility
requirements small offshore operators who, even under a worst-case
scenario, lack the capacity to cause a major oil spill. This de minimis
exemption removes the potential for imposing an unjustifiably heavy
financial burden on small businesses that pose only minimal
environmental risk.
Importantly, however, the conference report does not affect the
liability of a facility that actually engages in a spill. Moreover, the
President retains the discretion to require even a small offshore
facility to demonstrate evidence of financial responsibility if the
risk justifies it.
Third, the conference report allows for some flexibility in the
amount of financial responsibility to be required of non-de minimis
offshore facilities. OPA currently directs the promulgation of
regulations that would require all offshore facilities to meet
financial responsibility requirements at a $150 million level.
The conference report, however, calls for use of the current $35
million requirement in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act for
facilities in Federal waters while giving the President discretion to
increase the requirement on the basis of risk. A similar approach is
taken for offshore facilities in State waters, except that the minimum
financial responsibility requirement is $10 million, given that many
coastal States impose their own such requirements.
These changes should remove the potential for unnecessary and
inefficient economic burdens yet preserve OPA's fundamental purpose of
ensuring that oil-spill polluters pay for their pollution.
Narrowing ``Direct Action'' Against Guarantors for Offshore Facilities
and Reaffirmation of Limit on Guarantor Liability
There are a couple of other changes the conference report makes to
OPA's financial responsibility requirements.
First, the conference report modifies the situations in which claims
may be brought directly against a guarantor for an offshore facility.
Ordinarily, OPA provides that all claims may be brought against a
spiller's guarantor.
The conference report limits the filing of claims directly against a
guarantor for an offshore facility, however, to three instances: First,
the claim is asserted by the United States, either for its own removal
costs and damages or to recover any compensation paid by the oil spill
liability trust fund to any claimant under OPA, including costs
incurred by the Fund in processing claims; second, the spiller has
filed a petition for bankruptcy; or third, the spiller has denied or
failed to pay a claim on the basis of insolvency.
These changes to direct action against a guarantor for an offshore
facility arose from the concern some have expressed that smaller,
independently owned offshore facilities might find it difficult to meet
OPA's financial responsibility requirements because of high insurance
costs. Because OPA's financial responsibility requirements have yet to
be imposed on offshore facilities, this remains to be seen.
Nevertheless, it is important to point out that the report makes
changes to direct action against guarantors only with respect to
offshore facilities. This narrow scope is intentional and it would not
be proper to expand it--to vessels, for example--because offshore
facilities are fundamentally different in this context. Many are small
and independently owned and, most important, unlike vessels, they are
immobile.
The report also directs that regulations be issued to establish a
process for implementing the changes to direct action for guarantors of
offshore facilities. The process must allow for the orderly and
expeditious presentation and resolution of claims and effectuate OPA's
purposes.
This is an important rulemaking and needs to protect claimants from
procedural mazes and confusion in the presentation of their claims.
They must not be subjected to shell games in which they get bounced
back and forth between a responsible party and its guarantor. The key
purpose of OPA to ensure that injured parties have quick and clear
access to compensation for their damages must not be undermined.
Consequently, in the rulemaking authorized under the conference
report, it should be clarified that the guarantor may not raise a
defense to a direct action that is based on an allegation that the
responsible party has not engaged in a prerequisite to the allowance of
the direct action--that is, the guarantor should not, on direct action,
be permitted to bar the claim by arguing that the responsible party has
not filed a petition for bankruptcy or has not denied or failed to pay
a claim on the ground of insolvency. To allow for such defenses to be
raised would in essence allow a guarantor for an offshore facility to
further narrow the conditions under which it is subject to direct
action from three to one, thereby undermining congressional intent.
Moreover, the rulemaking ought to provide clear guidance and notice
to injured parties on how and to whom they may present their claims.
The changes to direct action in the report should not result in parties
injured by spills from offshore facilities having their claims subject
to a more protracted or difficult process than other OPA claimants.
The conference report also reaffirms Congress's original intent in
enacting OPA in 1990 concerning the limit of liability for a guarantor
on claims brought under the act. Thus, the changes to and addition of
text in the subsection should not be read to effect any substantive
change in that liability limitation. Instead, they are meant only to
confirm that OPA does not impose liability with respect to an incident
on a guarantor for damages and removal costs in excess of the amount of
financial responsibility provided by the guarantor under the act.
conclusion
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which I am
chairman, has jurisdiction over many of the OPA issues addressed in the
conference
[[Page S11797]]
report. Some of the other OPA amendments in the report, however, are
within the jurisdiction of the Senate Commerce Committee.
In that regard, I would like to thank Commerce Committee Chairman
Pressler for his cooperation in facilitating the coordination of the
work of our two committees. In the same vein, special thanks also are
due Senator Stevens, chairman of the Subcommittee on Oceans and
Fisheries.
I also want to express my gratitude to House Transportation and
Infrastructure Chairman Shuster for his willingness to work so
cooperatively with the Senate on the differences between the House and
Senate bills in conference.
Finally, I want to thank Senators Lieberman and Lautenberg, the two
original cosponsors of S. 1730. These Senators have worked diligently
to help shape the OPA amendments, first offered in S. 1730 and now in
the conference report, so that the amendments will best achieve their
intended purposes.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues
in supporting the conference report on S. 1004, the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 1996. Congress has not completed action on a Coast
Guard authorization bill since 1993. In recent years, the bill has
become the hostage of legislative battles on issues that are completely
unrelated to the Coast Guard authorization.
Today, after many hours of discussion, I am pleased that the
conferees finally have reached agreement on wideranging legislation
that enjoys widespread support. The conference report authorizes
funding of just over $3.7 billion annually for fiscal years 1996 and
1997, provides for end-of-year military strength and training loads and
addresses a backlog of Coast Guard-related administrative and policy
issues. Among such issues, the bill provides for: personnel
administrative reforms requested by the administration, marine safety
and waterways management improvements, updated authority for the Coast
Guard Auxiliary, regulatory reforms for the U.S. maritime industry, and
tougher controls to reduce marine plastic pollution.
The conference report recognizes that the Coast Guard has an
important job and does it well. Indeed, the widespread support for the
Coast Guard budget reflects the breadth and complexity of its
missions--from protecting our maritime boundaries and the safety of
life at sea to preserving the ocean environment and enforcing maritime
laws and treaties. On an average day in 1994, the Coast Guard saved 14
lives, assisted 328 people, responded to 34 oil or hazardous chemical
spills, inspected 64 commercial vessels, seized 379 pounds of illegal
drugs, serviced 150 aids-to-navigation, and interdicted 174 illegal
aliens.
Over the years, we have continued to ask the Ocean Guard to do more
with less. In typical fashion, the Coast Guard has responded with a
streamlining plan that will trim $400 million from the budget by 1998
and allow personnel reductions of 4000 people. As an example of the
pragmatic approach the Coast Guard has taken in this plan, we recently
welcomed the Coast Guard high endurance cutters, Dallas and Gallatin,
to their new homeport at the Charleston Navy Base. By relocating Coast
Guard assets from expensive locales like Governors Island to areas
where the quality of life is high and the cost of living is reasonable,
everyone benefits. The Coast Guard is better able to meet both its
budgetary bottom line and its personnel needs.
Turning to the conference report, I would like to highlight some key
provisions. With respect to the Coast Guard bridge program under the
Truman-Hobbs Act, the Federal Government shares with the States the
cost of altering publicly owned bridges that obstruct the free movement
of marine traffic. The administration requested no funding for this
account in fiscal year 1995, initiating a new policy under which the
Coast Guard no longer would seek direct funding for alteration of
highway bridges. Instead, the administration proposed that the Federal
share of such projects be financed from the discretionary bridge funds
of the Federal Highway Administration, under the continuing program
direction of the Coast Guard.
The conference report provides the Secretary of Transportation with
the discretionary authority and the flexibility to fund the program
from either the Coast Guard bridge account or the discretionary bridge
fund of the Federal Highway Administration. I anticipate that the
Department of Transportation will use this new authority in the months
to come in developing a plan to ensure stable funding for this
longstanding and essential part of our national transportation safety
program. In addition, individual Truman-Hobbs bridge projects, such as
the John F. Limehouse Memorial Bridge in Charleston, SC, are critically
important to address local transportation infrastructure needs.
Consequently, I would like to thank the Department for working with me
to identify $9 million in unused federal highway funds that will be
made available to begin construction of the Limehouse Bridge. This
bridge project is essential to improve navigation safety and provide
for adequate evacuation of the Charleston area in the event of another
hurricane or natural disaster.
On another matter, the Coast Guard has worked with the maritime
industry in recent years to develop a package of amendments to existing
marine safety laws that would allow their implementation in a more
cost-effective and efficient manner, reduce the regulatory burden on
the industry, and provide greater flexibility in making safety
decisions. The amendments contained in the conference report before us
today specifically would: implement the International Safety Management
Code for U.S. vessels engaged in foreign commerce; allow qualified
third parties such as the American Bureau of Shipping to conduct vessel
safety inspections; allow greater use of foreign manufactured safety
equipment; and extend the validity of Coast Guard certificates of
inspection from 2 to 5 years, allowing earlier scheduling of annual
inspections. The changes will help U.S. flag vessels to become more
competitive in international trade and reflect the Coast Guard's
commitment to harmonize U.S. regulations with international
requirements. In addition, the conference report provides relief to
operators of small passenger vessels from the exorbitantly high
inspection fees that the Coast Guard was forced to establish in its
efforts to achieve deficit reduction mandates.
The conference report also includes a provision developed in
cooperation with Senator Lautenberg that would amend the act to Prevent
Pollution from Ships [APPS] to strengthen requirements that ports
maintain reception facilities to offload plastic wastes generated by
vessels at sea. The legislation calls for the Secretary to inspect and
maintains a list of such facilities and for port operators to post
placards encouraging reporting of any inadequacies. The report also
amends the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act to:
continue the Secretary's biannual reporting to Congress on compliance
with APPS; add a requirement to publish an annual list of APPS
violators; establish a Marine Debris Coordinating Committee; and
continue and expand the Federal public outreach program to include the
use of grants.
Like most legislation, this conference report reflects a compromise
and does not include some provisions which this Senator would have
liked to have had enacted. In particular, I was disappointed that we
were unable to persuade the House of Representatives to accept the
Senate provision on funding for State boating safety programs. The
Senate-passed provision would have ensured that States receive a stable
source of financial assistance for the development and implementation
of a coordinated national recreational boating safety program. This is
an issue that should be addressed early in the 105th Congress.
Over the past two centuries, the U.S. Coast Guard has built an
enduring reputation throughout the world for its maritime safety,
environmental protection, humanitarian, and lifesaving efforts. We have
all watched the valiant and often heroic work of Coast Guard seamen and
officers as they rescue desperate refugees who have taken to the seas
in crowded and makeshift boats. Even in the remote regions of the
world, the Coast Guard is present, actively engaged in the enforcement
of United Nations embargoes against countries like the former Republic
of
[[Page S11798]]
Yugoslavia and Iraq. The men and women of the Coast Guard respond with
equal dedication during times of war and peace. I ask my colleagues to
recognize this service by joining me in supporting the conference
report on S. 1004.
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise to support adoption of the Coast
Guard Conference Report for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
Mr. President, the Coast Guard has broad ranging responsibilities--
from enforcing America's maritime laws to ensuring the safety of
recreational boaters.
Mr. President, like other Federal agencies, the Coast Guard faces the
challenge of continuing to provide better government at less cost. It
is clear the American taxpayers are demanding a smaller, more
accountable Federal Government. At the same time, the demand for
certain government services, including those provided by the Coast
Guard, continues to be great. The Commandant of the Coast Guard,
Admiral Robert E. Kramek, recently announced his National Plan for
Streamlining the Coast Guard, which will save, on a cumulative basis,
nearly one billion dollars by the year 2005 and make available over one
billion dollars in property for other uses. Despite cuts of this
magnitude, the Coast Guard will continue to perform all its current
missions. I am pleased the Coast Guard is making a serious effort to
improve it's efficiency while maintaining its effectiveness.
Mr. President, the conference report before us authorizes
appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 and
authorizes several management improvements requested by the Coast
Guard. Many Members on both sides of the aisle have expressed interest
in this bill and we have addressed their requests as best we could. The
conference report has broad bipartisan support.
Mr. President, I believe the Coast Guard is up to the challenge of
maintaining its status as the world's premier maritime organization
despite intense budget pressure. It is my belief this authorization
bill provides the Coast Guard with the support it needs to meet that
challenge.
Mr. President, let me take this opportunity to thank the very capable
Senator Stevens, who is chairman of our Oceans and Fisheries
Subcommittee, for his leadership in developing the original bill. I
would like to recognize Senator Hollings, the ranking Democratic member
on the full committee for his bipartisanship throughout this process.
Mr. President, I would also like to thank Congressman Shuster,
chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and
chairman of our Coast Guard Conference. He and his staff have worked
long and hard in completing our work on this authorization.
Mr. President, finally I thank my colleagues for their contributions
and support and I urge the adoption of the conference report for S.
1004.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Coast Guard is very important in
Alaska, where the commercial fishing industry is the largest private
sector employer. We have over half the coastline of the United States,
and sportsmen from around the world come to fish off Alaska. Alaskans
and others rely on the Coast Guard every single day in Alaska.
At a national level, the Coast Guard is also important. Nationwide
last year, the Coast Guard: (1) saved 4,450 lives--an average of one
life every two hours; (2) assisted 98,900 persons in distress; (3)
conducted 12,634 fisheries boardings; (4) inspected 38,000 U.S. vessels
and 9,000 foreign vessels; (5) conducted 51 drug seizure cases,
confiscating 23 tons of marijuana and 49,000 pounds of cocaine; (6)
conducted 16,976 pollution investigations; (7) serviced 39,059 Federal
navigation aids; and (8) saved or protected $7.3 billion in property,
more than twice the Coast Guard's budget in 1995. In short, the Coast
Guard performs functions that are vital to every American who goes near
the water.
The conference bill and statement reauthorize the important
activities of the Coast Guard for fiscal years 1996 and 1997. Our
statement explains each of the sections of the bill, so I will not go
through it in detail here.
I would like to thank Conference Chairman Bud Shuster and his staff,
Rebecca Dye and Ed Lee. They have done a great job running this
conference. In the Senate, I want to thank Chairman Pressler, and his
staff Tom Melius and Jim Sartucci. Chairman Pressler's record as
chairman this Congress has been remarkable. His accomplishments have
included the Telecommunications bill, the ICC dismantling bill, the
Maritime Security bill, the Magnuson reauthorization, and now the Coast
Guard authorization, to name a few. Both Tom Melius and Jim Sartucci
have been invaluable to the chairman and to me on the Coast Guard bill
and other legislation.
Thanks also to Senator Hollings and Subcommittee Chairman Kerry for
their help with this bill, and to their staff, Penny Dalton, Carl
Bentzel and Lila Helms. Lastly, I would like to thank my legislative
director, Earl Comstock, and my staff on the Oceans and Fisheries
Subcommittee, Trevor McCabe, for their work on S. 1004.
I strongly support the enactment of this important legislation.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my
distinguished colleagues Senators Stevens, Hollings, and Breaux in
bringing this bill before the Senate today to authorize the programs
and activities of the United States Coast Guard for fiscal years 1996
and 1997.
In this time of dramatic changes in our society and our Government, I
speak in support of an agency which I think virtually everyone if not
absolutely everyone can agree is a good investment--the United States
Coast Guard. This is something that I have observed at close range; the
Coast Guard is vital to my state of Massachusetts, with its hundreds of
miles of coastline, unforgiving storms, bustling maritime industry,
history-rich fishing industry and thriving recreational boating
population.
Moreover, the Coast Guard is vital to the safety and well-being of
citizens in every coastal state, and in every state with navigable
waters. Today, over 50 percent of the U.S. population lives within the
coastal zone, and directly benefits from the services the Coast Guard
provides. Indirectly, the Coast Guard provides invaluable services to
every American. In fact, more than two-thirds of the total budget for
the Coast Guard is used for its operating expenses, as it provides for
the public safety, protects the marine environment, enforces laws and
treaties, maintains aids to navigation, prevents illegal drug
trafficking and illegal immigration, and preserves defense readiness.
As we act on this bill, it is fitting that we briefly review the
history of our Nation's oldest continuous seagoing service--that has
fought in almost every war since the Constitution established our
government in 1789. Throughout its history of over two hundred years,
the Coast Guard has served as a multi-mission service, flexible enough
to adjust to the needs of the nation in peacetime as well as wartime.
From its origins as the Revenue Cutter Service enforcing tariff laws of
the young nation under Alexander Hamilton's command in 1789, to its
activities today of saving lives, enforcing U.S. laws and treaties,
ensuring maritime safety and defense, maintaining safe navigation and
protecting the environment, the Coast Guard has served and continues to
serve the nation well.
Because of this legacy of service, I believe it is our responsibility
to ensure that the Coast Guard has adequate resources for its missions
as it prepares for the next century. We should be concerned that the
Coast Guard is capable of meeting its existing mandates and recognize
the Coast Guard's ever-expanding roles and missions in our coastal
waters and beyond.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a long and storied involvement
with the sea and the Coast Guard. One of Alexander Hamilton's 10
original revenue cutters was built in the city of Newburyport. Today's
Coast Guard cutters are stationed in the ports of Boston, Gloucester,
Woods Hole, and New Bedford. The first lighthouse built in the country
was Boston Light in 1716. Today, Boston Light stands as the only manned
lighthouse still in operation in the United States. The people of
Massachusetts love the water and many rely on it directly or indirectly
for their livelihood. The men and women of the Coast Guard keep watch
over the fishing fleets, the maritime industry,
[[Page S11799]]
and the over 145,000 recreational boats registered in Massachusetts.
Indeed, I believe that Massachusetts has a unique and historic
relationship with the Coast Guard.
But we all know that the Coast Guard's mission does not end at our
shore. It protects all of our interests throughout the world, in times
of war and peace. From supporting U.S. peacekeepers in Haiti, to
responding to oil spills in the Persian Gulf, to supporting drug
interdiction efforts in South and Central America, the Coast Guard has
been there. Its work has been exemplary, but it seems that we
continually ask the Coast Guard to do more with less, a practice that
has persisted for some time. The Coast Guard is now in the process of a
4-year downsizing and streamlining which will ultimately reduce the
Service by 12 percent--4,000 people and $400 million. I believe that we
must eventually acknowledge the finite limitations on Coast Guard
capabilities and resources and I am deeply concerned about some of the
choices that it will be forced to make. The bill before us today will
assist the Coast Guard in this respect, allowing it to do its job more
effectively and efficiently. This ultimately will benefit the public by
increasing the level of safety on the Nation's waterways.
This bill contains an assortment of significant provisions. Long
awaited by the maritime industry, the Coast Guard regulatory reform
provisions contained in the bill will eliminate unnecessary and
burdensome regulations on American shipping companies, enabling them to
be more competitive in the world market. This reform will save precious
resources while also relieving an unnecessary burden from a struggling
industry.
A provision amending the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships will
strengthen Coast Guard enforcement capability for protecting the
environment from plastics, will ensure adequate waste reception
facilities at ports and terminals, and will encourage public education
and reporting programs.
To increase the tools in our war on drugs, the bill will provide new
authority for Federal law enforcement officials by eliminating the
potential defense of some would-be drug smugglers arrested during a
vessel boarding at sea by the Coast Guard. Some smugglers have thwarted
prosecution by claiming protection of another country's flag during
legal proceedings, when at the time of the Coast Guard boarding at sea
when they were arrested, they claimed their vessel was a stateless
vessel.
To make the best use of an existing technology, and to prevent a
dangerous disconnect to develop during the migration to a new
navigation technology, the bill calls for the Coast Guard to develop a
plan for the transition from the current ground-based radio navigation
technology [LORAN-C] system to a satellite-based technology, global
positioning system or GPS. For safety, this plan will include an
appropriate timetable for transition from LORAN-C after it is
determined that GPS can serve adequately as a sole means of safe and
efficient navigation. The plan must also take into consideration the
need to ensure that LORAN-C equipment purchased by the public before
the year 2000 has a useful economic life. This provision ensures that
those that made the financial investment in LORAN-C equipment will not
suddenly find that system is worthless.
The Coast Guard's efforts to downsize and streamline have been
admirable, and, in general, I support the Coast Guard's plans to
streamline and consolidate operations where possible. In fact, I
applaud the Coast Guard's recently announced streamlining plans which
do not close or consolidate any front-line operating units while they
reduce the Service's personnel by 1,000 people and its overhead expense
by $100 million. However, I am concerned by the proposal to close 23 of
the Coast Guard's front-line Small Boat Stations as a cost cutting
effort to save $6 million.
Another important issue is involved in the Coast Guard's proposed
closing of small boat stations. I have looked closely at the criteria
used by the Coast Guard to develop the closure and station modification
lists and was surprised to find absent from the criteria any
consideration of local and regional factors, including water
temperature and unusual tidal or current conditions. The Coast Guard
uses a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to determining response time for
its small boat stations. I believe that other important regional
criteria such as severe weather conditions and tides and currents
should be considered as well. For example, in some regions
these conditions could slow the average response, and colder water
temperatures could necessitate a quicker response time. In 1789,
Treasury Secretary Hamilton, the founding father of the service that
eventually became the Coast Guard, was the first to acknowledge that
such conditions matter when he allowed additional funding for the
construction of two larger revenue cutters in order to handle the harsh
weather conditions off the coast of New England. These conditions have
not changed, and it is equally legitimate and essential today for local
and regional conditions to be addressed in any Coast Guard decision
process. This is not a consideration limited only to Massachusetts--or
even to the New England region. Especially challenging conditions exist
in numbers of regions, including, for example, the Great Lakes and the
Northwest Pacific.
The Coast Guard criteria also appear to exclude consideration of
vital Coast Guard missions other than search and rescue--including
marine environmental protection; boating safety; enforcement of drug,
illegal alien, and fisheries laws. In determining whether to close a
station, I believe it is important for the Coast Guard to take into
account all the services provided by the station. The Coast Guard also
should contemplate the alternative measures for maintaining the
station's current level of service in the area it serves.
The provisions in this bill establish a more detailed and public
process to address station closure issues and those enunciated by the
Senate appropriations Committee last year. My provision includes the
appropriators' prohibition on station closures for fiscal year 1996.
However, the provision in this bill does not prohibit station closures
in the future; it only requires the Coast Guard to take into
consideration the unique local and regional conditions, including water
temperature, in reaching a closure decision. It also requires the Coast
Guard to determine and take into account the cop on the beat effect of
the station. The presence of the station, and boats and Coast Guard
personnel on the water, has a positive impact on local boaters and
serves as a deterrent to crime. This provision also requires the
Secretary of Transportation to ensure that the closure of a station
will not result in the degradation of services that would cause
significant increased threat to life, property, environment, public
safety or national security. Also important, the provision requires
public review procedures to be established and used by the Coast Guard
so that those coastal communities most impacted by the closure of a
station can submit comments on their concerns before the final decision
is made.
Ultimately, though, nothing in the bill prohibits the Secretary of
Transportation from implementing management efficiencies within the
small boat system, such as modifying the operational posture of units
or reallocating resources as necessary to ensure the safety of the
maritime public nationwide. I believe that my provision gives the Coast
Guard the flexibility to make the operational changes it needs to make,
but ensures that coastal communities, their residents, and the
environment are not put at risk by closing a station.
I am extremely pleased to have secured another key provision for
Massachusetts in this bill--language that will permit financing to go
forward to revitalize the Fore River Shipyard in Quincy, MA. Section
1139 of the bill is based on an amendment originally sought by Senator
Kennedy and me in the Commerce-State-Justice appropriation bill for
fiscal year 1997, and later amended by Majority Leader Lott. In my
view, Senator Lott has not inappropriately toughened up the language.
In the case of the Quincy project, this language will place a greater
responsibility on the Commonwealth of Massachussets to help underwrite
the necessary financing. I am satisfied that the new language leaves
enough discretion to the Maritime Administration so
[[Page S11800]]
that a suitable arrangement can be reached that is both affordable and
acceptable to the Commonwealth. This is a matter on which I, Senator
Kennedy, and Representative Studds have been working for over a year.
Specifically, section 1139 establishes the basis for the Secretary of
Transportation to assist certain shipyards, including the yard at
Quincy, by facilitating the extension of Federal loan guarantees for
the reactivation and modernization of those yards and the construction
of vessels by the yards. Significantly, this section has been carefully
drafted to provide several layers of protection to the Federal
taxpayer, and to ensure the State where a yard is located shoulders a
degree of the financial burden of revitalizing the yard, and also a
portion of the financial risk. For example, subsection (d) requires the
State or a State chartered agency where the yard is located to deposit
the amount of funds needed to cover the percentage of the risk factor
cost under the Federal Credit Reform Act into the Federal treasury, and
provides for the reversion of the funds to the State if no obligation
needs to be paid from the deposited funds. I fully expect that the
percentage of the risk factor under this subsection will never exceed
12 percent. It appears to me that a deposit from the State of 12
percent will be more than adequate to fulfill the requirements
associated with the risk of default for a project of this nature.
This provision is significant to my State because the Quincy Shipyard
project is the first of its kind. It is the first project to revitalize
an inoperative shipyard and put it back into production as a state-of-
the-art facility that will employ up to two thousand workers in good
jobs. This is an amendment that makes sense, because the proposal to
revitalize the Quincy Shipyard will turn it into a shipyard on the
cutting edge of technology and one which will produce vessels that will
be in demand in the international marketplace for years--double-hulled
oil tankers to carry petroleum safely around the world. The Federal
Government's investment in the Quincy Shipyard will be repaid many
times over through the jobs that will be created, and through the
renewed position of American maritime leadership that the project will
help us attain. Now that Congress has done its part, it is incumbent
upon the Commonwealth, the city of Quincy, the Massachussets Heavy
Industries Corp., and the Maritime Administration to make this project
a reality.
This bill is the culmination of almost 2 years of effort. and I would
like to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Stevens, the
chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Pressler, and the
committee's ranking Democrat, Senator Hollings, for their hard work in
bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor. I believe this bill and the
work of the four of us provide a superb example of how this institution
can effectively write and pass good law. I also would like to
acknowledge the hard work and long hours invested by the staffs on both
sides of the aisle, including Penny Dalton and Lila Helms on the
Commerce Committee minority staff, and Tom Melius, Trevor McCabe, and
Jim Sartucci of the majority staff. On my personal staff, I would like
to acknowledge the work of Kate English, Steve Metruck, Peter Hill and
Tom Richey on this bill.
This bill is carefully considered, and carefully written. It merits
passage. I urge my colleagues to vote for it today.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act which includes a number of provisions related to
preventing oil spills in the future. Two of these provisions were added
to the bill at my request, and arise out of an oil spill that occurred
in Portsmouth, NH on July 1, 1996.
For the benefit of my colleagues, I would like to take the chance to
briefly explain the series of events that led to this oil spill. At
approximately 10:30 p.m. on Monday, July 1st, the tanker ``Provence''
was off-loading fuel at the Schiller Station powerplant in Portsmouth
when, during a flood tide, the ship parted its mooring lines and began
to drift into the middle of the Piscataqua River. One of the workers
who was involved in off-loading the ship, quickly acted to shut off the
pumps, but unfortunately, approximately 1000 gallons of number 6 fuel
oil, which was contained in the hoses of the ship, spilled into the
river. The ship then drifted over to the Maine side of the river and
ran aground. Given the fact that the ship contained 250,000 barrels of
oil, it is fortunate that a much more serious accident did not occur.
Less than 15 minutes after the grounding occurred, the Portsmouth
Response Co-op, a local entity created to respond to these types of
spills, had already begun stationing oil containment booms around the
tanker, and a little more than one-half hour after that, the Coast
Guard was at the site responding to the spill. Although there was a
quick response to this incident, the number 6 oil that was spilled at
this site is a type of oil that is heavier than water, and thus, sank
to the bottom of the Piscataqua River. The result was that thousands of
lobsters were soiled or killed in an area that is a prime fishing spot
for the lobstermen of my State.
Notwithstanding the fact that they were limited in their ability to
respond to the spill, I believe that the local fishermen, the
Portsmouth Co-op, the State of New Hampshire Department of Fish and
Game and the United States Coast Guard should all be commended for
their expeditious and highly professional response to this spill.
Soon after the spill, I was able to take a tour of the Piscataqua on
the boat of Mr. Ed Heaphy, a lobsterman in my State, in order to
understand, first hand, what occurred with this spill. While it is too
soon to fully grasp the long term effects from this incident, it
appears that the oil has dissipated and the lobstermen are again able
to fish in this area. During my tour, and the subsequent conversations
I have had with the Coast Guard, it has become readily apparent to me
that there are two problems that occurred related to this spill that
deserve additional attention by the Coast Guard.
The first issue involves the oil itself. The number 6 oil that
spilled in the Piscataqua is classified as ``group 5'' oil by the Coast
Guard because it is heavier than water and sinks to the bottom when it
is spilled. In Portsmouth, little could be done to clean up this oil
except to attempt to ``fish'' it off the bottom of the river utilizing
oil sorbent pads tied to anchors dangled from boats. I think this is a
primitive way of addressing an important oil cleanup issue.
The second issue at this site involved the oil pumping operations on
the ship. Although we were fortunate that quick action resulted in the
pumps being shut off, if this action had not occurred, hundreds, if not
thousands of gallons per minute could have been pumped into the river.
It appears obvious that we should not have to count on luck in such an
incident.
Given these two circumstances, I felt that it was urgent that we take
a closer look at these issues to determine if further action needs to
be taken to prevent a reoccurrence of these types of spills in the
future. For this reason, I drafted an amendment to attach to the Coast
Guard Authorization Act. This amendment addresses the two problems
highlighted during the spill in Portsmouth. The first provision would
require a study of cleanup methods for group 5 oils and a report to be
submitted to Congress within 18 months of the passage of this
legislation. The second provision would require a study of the need for
automatic fuel shutoff equipment and a report to be submitted to
Congress within 18 months. In addition, this amendment gives the
Secretary of Transportation the authority to adopt a rulemaking to take
action on these two issues if he finds, as a result of the studies,
that action is necessary to abate a threat to public health and the
environment.
I would like to thank the Republican Leader Senator Lott, the
chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Chafee, Senator Stevens, the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries, and Senator
Pressler, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, for their willingness
to work with me to have this amendment adopted. I believe that this
study will lead to solutions that will avoid these problems in the
future, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong
support for the provisions in this bill designed to strengthen our oil
spill prevention
[[Page S11801]]
laws. This bill incorporates key provisions of S. 1730, legislation
introduced by Senator Chafee which I was proud to cosponsor. I
congratulate Senator Chafee for his outstanding work in this area and I
was delighted to be able to work closely with him on these provisions.
Last February in Rhode Island, Senator Chafee and I had the
unfortunate responsibility to review the tragic economic and
environmental impacts of the oil spill resulting from the grounding of
the barge North Cape off the coast of Rhode Island. At that hearing and
in subsequent hearings in Washington, we also examined the
implementation of the Oil Pollution Act of l990.
We learned during those hearings that one of the goals of the l990
Act--improving the response time for an oil spill--was largely
fulfilled. Unfortunately, we also learned that the pollution prevention
provisions of the Act were not working as well as the response
provisions. We also heard about concerns with implementation of some of
the provisions designed to ensure expeditious compensation for the
victims of oil spills, such as the fishermen in Rhode Island.
We learned at our hearings that the regulatory system for tows and
barges is woefully inadequate, even though they travel through some of
the most environmentally sensitive areas and stormy waters. For
example, barges are not required to have an operable anchor on board.
Such an anchor would have slowed, if not stopped, the barge North Cape
from drifting toward the Rhode Island shore, according to an expert
witness at one of our hearings. There are no requirements for adequate
firefighting equipment on towing vessels. The grounding of the barge
North Cape was triggered by a fire on board the tug Scandia and the
crew of the Scandia apparently was unable to gain access to the area
where the fire suppression system was located.
I am pleased that this legislation addresses many of the problems we
learned about in the aftermath of the Rhode Island spill. Let me review
just a few of the highlights.
The bill takes strong steps to reduce the risks of oil spills from
single hull tank barges. By October 1, l997, the Secretary of
Transportation must issue a rule requiring single hull tank barges to
have at least one of the following: a crewmember and an operable anchor
on board the barge that can stop the barge without additional
assistance; an emergency system on the barge or towing vessel that will
allow the barge to be retrieved by the towing vessel if the towline
ruptures; or other measures that the Secretary determines will provide
comparable protection against barge grounding.
The legislation also requires that by October 1, l997, the Secretary
require the installation of fire suppression systems or other measures
to provide assurance that a fire on board a towing vessel towing a tank
vessel can be suppressed.
Another important provision of the bill reaffirms that the Oil
Pollution Act of l990 allows those who have suffered economic loss from
an oil spill to receive payment for interim, short- term damages
without losing their right to recover all damages down the road. In
Rhode Island, some fishermen who needed money immediately for their
daily existence were reluctant to pursue partial claims because of fear
that they might waive their rights to long-term damages. They suffered
significant hardship, and we want to assure that such a situation will
not happen again.
The bill also strengthens the current law's requirement for
compliance with a response plan in the event of a spill. It provides
that such plans must be followed unless deviation would provide for a
more expeditious or effective response to an oil spill or mitigation of
its effects.
The bill also includes an important study that the Secretary, in
coordination with the Marine Board, must conduct on the risk of oil
spills from lightering operations, including recommendations on
measures that would likely further reduce the risks of oil spills from
lightering operations. These recommendations should help to protect our
local marine environment from the threats posed by such spills.
Oil spills are an unfortunate fact of modern life, but their effect
on our world, the economy, and people can be minimized if we write and
enforce good laws that make spills rarer, allow quicker cleanup and
provide adequate compensation to victims. The Oil Pollution Act of l990
helped make the Rhode Island spill of l996 less severe than it might
otherwise have been. But the spill might have been avoided altogether,
and that must remain our goal for the future. Enactment of the
legislation we are considering today will help move us toward that
goal.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the conference
report for the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996.
Mr. President, many senators, particularly those who represent land-
locked States, would probably not think of a Coast Guard
reauthorization bill as being a very difficult undertaking. But the
development and negotiation of this bill has not been easy.
Three years have elapsed since the Coast Guard was last reauthorized,
even though this essential agency is supposed to receive an annual
authorization like the Defense Department. Unfortunately, several
controversial issues have slowed the progress of this bill, and it was
not until yesterday that the last of these was finally resolved between
the Members of the House and Senate on both sides of the aisle.
I think the fact that we have gotten the bill this far--to the verge
of sending a conference report to the President--is a testament to the
expert leadership that the bill has been fortunate to receive. Senator
Stevens, the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee chairman, and Senator
Pressler, our full committee chairman, have done an impressive and
artful job of shepherding this bill past many seemingly insurmountable
obstacles and pitfalls. This bill teetered on the precipice on several
occasions during the past 2 years, and each time, Senators Stevens and
Pressler rescued and revived the measure. Their deft handling of this
measure is what has brought it so close to enactment.
Mr. President, the American people want this bill. The Coast Guard
provides an essential service for our country. It makes the waters of
this maritime Nation safe for the mariners of all stripes who ply our
waters--the commercial and sport fishermen, the merchant seamen, the
sailing enthusiasts, the cruise ship passengers, and others. It defends
our borders from the depredations of the drug lords who would export
their poison to our communities. It protects our waters from oil spills
and other forms of marine pollution.
We need to reauthorize and update the legislative authorities for
this critical agency, and this conference report does a good job in
that regard. Not only does this report include necessary reforms and
authorities for the Coast Guard, but it is a fiscally responsible piece
of legislation. It authorizes approximately $3.8 billion for the Coast
Guard in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. This amount represents a very
small increase over the funding levels in the previous authorization
which expired in 1993.
Mr. President, I would also like to specifically mention several
provisions in the report that are based on amendments I sponsored or
cosponsored with other Senators during consideration of the Senate
bill, and that have been retained in the conference report.
One of the longest lasting legacies of this bill will be the
preservation of 36 lighthouses on the coast of Maine. This provision
originated as a stand-alone bill earlier in the year, S. 685. It was
adopted by the full Senate in S. 1004, the Senate Coast Guard bill, and
it is included in the conference report.
This provision will create the Maine Lights program to transfer these
historically and environmentally important lighthouses to new owners
who will agree to maintain them, preserve their historic character,
preserve ecological resources on adjacent property like seabird nesting
habitat, and provide access to the public. In short, this legislation
provides a way to preserve these lighthouses at very little or no cost
to the federal government.
Mr. President, long after this bill passes, when citizens from all
over the country visit the Maine coast and admire the lighthouses, they
will have this Congress to thank for its vision and its commitment to
preserving such a valuable piece of the Nation's coastal heritage.
Times have changed since the lighthouses that we will protect in this
bill
[[Page S11802]]
were first constructed, but one thing hasn't changed: the heart of the
Coast Guard's mission is still the human emergency response, the
rescues at sea. It's critical that the Coast Guard maintain this
capability to respond promptly and professionally to all accidents in
American waters, even while we are engaged in the necessary process of
balancing the budget and protecting the fiscal health of the Nation.
Senator Kerry and I authored an amendment in the Commerce Committee
to prevent the Coast Guard from closing any of its small-boat, multi-
mission stations unless the Secretary first certifies that the closure
will not result in a degradation of services that threatens life,
property, the environment, or public safety. Language that I included
in this amendment provided, in particular, that a proposed station
closure will not hamper the Coast Guard's ability to meet its 2-hour
standard for responding to search and rescue requests.
At the request of the House, we agreed to streamline the Senate
provisions for the conference report, but the report maintains the key
components of our amendment. The Coast Guard will still have to certify
that the closure of a small boat station will not impair the agency's
ability to maintain the safety of the maritime public. It will still
have to ensure that search and rescue standards, such as the two-hour
response time, will have to be met. And it will still have to ensure
that the extra safety threats posed by unique or special marine
conditions, such as exceedingly cold water, will be fully considered
before any stations are closed. This is a very important provision that
will guarantee that the safety of the maritime public will not be
diminished if the Coast Guard decides to close a small-boat station.
Mr. President, another provision that I sponsored during Senate
consideration and that has been retained in the conference report will
facilitate a timely and effective response in the event of an oil spill
in certain areas near our foreign borders such as Passamaquoddy Bay on
Maine's border with Canada.
Passamaquoddy Bay is a large, virtually pristine bay and estuary
system that is internationally recognized as a staging area for
migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. In addition, the bay area has
substantial economic value, hosting major aquaculture and commercial
fishing operations, a vibrant tourism industry that depends on the
health of the bay, and one of Maine's three major cargo ports.
Unfortunately, this important resource would be relatively
unprotected in the event of a major oil spill. The State of Maine does
not have an adequate number and type of oil spill response vessels in
the vicinity of Passamaquoddy Bay. Some Canadian-registered vessels
based north of the bay could do the job, but current federal law
prevents these vessels from operating in U.S. waters.
To address this kind of problem, my amendment, which was modified in
cooperation with other senators prior to adoption of the conference
report, will allow foreign-registered oil spill response vessels to be
used in U.S. waters in the event of an oil spill. The authority only
applies on a temporary and emergency basis, however. And it only
applies as long as U.S.-documented response are not available to
respond in a timely manner. Furthermore, the modified amendment makes
this authority contingent on the nation in which the foreign vessel is
registered providing the same privileges to U.S. response vessels.
This provision will help to ensure that U.S. waters like
Passamaquoddy Bay receive the maximum amount of protection from an oil
spill, while giving U.S. recovery vessels priority consideration for
doing the work if they are available.
Mr. President, as we consider this conference report, the State of
Maine and the Coast Guard are grappling with a significant oil spill
that occurred yesterday in Portland harbor. The spill occurred after a
tanker carrying diesel fuel struck a drawbridge. This is obviously a
very unfortunate development, and we wish it had not happened. Once the
spill has been cleaned up, it will be thoroughly investigated by
federal authorities.
But the spill does underscore the very serious need to make sure that
all of our coastal areas are fully equipped to respond effectively to
oil spills. The conference report contains a number of provisions to do
that, including the amendment that I just described, and these
provisions take on an added urgency in light of the Portland oil spill.
Finally, I wanted to reference the section on financial
responsibility under the Oil Pollution Act. I offered an amendment in
the Commerce Committee that addressed the aspect of this issue dealing
with marinas and onshore fuel terminals. Under some current
interpretations of OPA, these facilities could have been subjected to
the act's extremely expensive financial responsibility requirements,
even though the act was intended to cover offshore drilling platforms
and other large production facilities that could be involved in large
oil spills.
Mr. President, the financial responsibility language in the report
reflects a compromise that Senators on the Commerce and EPW Committees,
and Members of the House, negotiated on this issue. Among other things,
it simply clarifies that marinas and onshore fuel terminals are not
subject to OPA's financial responsibility requirements. This
legislation will benefit many small businesses, boaters, commercial
fishermen, oil distributors, and fuel consumers across the country
without jeopardizing important environmental protections.
Mr. President, this is a very good bill, and it is the result of a
lot of hard work and painstaking negotiation. It deserves the strong
support of all Senators, and I would urge my colleagues to vote yes and
send it to the President.
CRUISE SHIP REVITALIZATION ACT
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today we close a 3-year effort to fix a
problem in State law that has led to scores of cruise ships bypassing
my State of California, taking thousands of jobs and millions of
dollars in needed revenue with them. Our ship, finally, has come in,
and I thank my colleagues here who have helped bring the cruise ships
back to the Golden State.
The conference report the Coast Guard Authorization Act includes my
legislation, the California Cruise Industry Revitalization Act, S. 138,
that responds to pleas from ports in my State--and the California
Legislature--to overturn a State law that has harmed the cruise ship
industry and the hundreds of jobs it creates. The California Cruise
Industry Revitalization Act has strong bipartisan support and no
opposition. It affects only my State.
I am thrilled to announce that because of our high-profile efforts to
win this provision in the past week--either as part of the Coast Guard
bill or the FAA bill--two major cruise lines have announced that they
will return to the Port of San Diego by the end of the year, if this
legislation passes. The two lines, Royal Caribbean and Carnival Cruise,
pulled out in 1992.
The section of the conference report incorporating my bill corrects a
problem that occurred when California responded to a 1992 congressional
amendment to the Johnson Act, permitting states to prohibit gambling on
intrastate cruises. The California law was written to prevent a
proliferation of casino development on Indian land within the State as
well as to reinforce the longstanding statutory prohibitions against
gambling ships and cruises to nowhere. Unfortunately, it also
prohibited ships on international cruises from making multiple ports of
call within the State.
My legislation simply makes a technical change to the Johnson Act,
allowing a cruise ship to make multiple ports of call in one State and
still be considered on an interstate or international voyage.
This legislation is essential to restoring California's cruise ship
industry, which has lost 2,400 direct and indirect jobs and $325
million in tourist revenue since 1993. Many cruise ship companies have
bypassed second and third ports of call within California.
The State's share of the global cruise ship business has dropped from
10 to 7 percent at the same time that growth in the cruise ship
business overall has climbed 10 percent a year. Our lost market share
has gone not to other States but to foreign countries along the Pacific
coast.
Mr. President, this legislation is not simply a matter of getting
Washington out of the way, as some have said. The
[[Page S11803]]
1994 California Assembly Joint Resolution No. 40 specifically states,
``That California memorializes Congress to amend the Johnson Act to
remove California's authority to regulate gambling on cruise ships
traveling to foreign ports or on segments of voyages going to another
State or country,* * *''
Furthermore, the California Trade and Commerce Agency wrote the
Senate Commerce Committee urging support for this legislation.
Today, we fulfill that request. We have been able to do so because of
the hard work of many people in and outside of this Congress. I first
want to thank former Congresswoman Lynn Schenk of San Diego, who first
brought this bill to my attention. Lynn persuaded her House colleagues
to pass this provision which was included in several maritime bills
which passed the House in 1994 only to die in the legislative gridlock
that fall.
Unfortunately, Lynn did not return to renew the fight in the 104th
Congress. However, the Port of San Diego and other ports in California
took up the call and repeatedly wrote and called congressional leaders
urging support for this measure. Congratulations Lynn. I was honored to
work with you.
Last year, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
agreed to attach my bill to the Coast Guard Act. I want to thank
Senator Hollings, the committee's ranking member, and his staff, for
their unwavering support for my provision as the Coast Guard bill in
conference entered troubled waters with unrelated, controversial
matters inserted in the House version.
I also want to thank Senator Ford, ranking member of the Aviation
Subcommittee, for his stalwart support not only in attaching my bill to
the FAA Reauthorization Act but to making sure it stayed there in
conference with the House until we were assured of the Coast Guard
bill's passage.
We could not have won this victory without the help of the
distinguished Democratic leadership of the committee, Senator Hollings
and Senator Ford. California owes a debt of gratitude to their
leadership.
My thanks also to Congress Members Jane Harman, Brian Bilbray and Bob
Filner who worked hard to get this bill through the House.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
conference report be considered adopted, the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table, and, finally, that any statements relating to the
conference report be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The conference report was agreed to.
____________________