[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.

                          ____________________