[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 21, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8892-H8903]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1997
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution
265 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 2204.
{time} 1822
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
2204) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for
the Coast Guard, and for other purposes, with Mr. Dickey in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] and the
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement], each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2204. Before I discuss
this bill, I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the full
committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], our ranking
minority member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Oberstar], and the
ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement], and their
staff for their help and cooperation on this legislation. H.R. 2204 was
developed in a bipartisan manner and deserves the support of all the
Members.
The primary purpose of H.R. 2204 is to authorize funds for the United
States Coast Guard for fiscal years 1998, 1999. Title I of this bill
authorizes $3.9 billion for Coast Guard activities in fiscal year 1998
and $4 billion in fiscal year 1999. The fiscal year 1998 authorization
contains an increase over the level requested by the President for the
Coast Guard of approximately $97 million. These funds primarily support
additional Coast Guard efforts to interdict illegal drugs before they
reach the United States.
The fiscal year 1999 authorization contains additional funds for drug
interdiction and for other Coast Guard
[[Page H8893]]
operating and acquisition costs. Specifically, this legislation
includes approximately $2.79 billion in fiscal year 1998, and $2.85
billion in fiscal year 1999 for Coast Guard operating expenses, $401
million in fiscal year 1998, and $444 million in fiscal year 1999 for
acquisition of vessels, aircraft and shore facilities, and $652 million
in fiscal year 1998, and $692 million in fiscal year 1999 for Coast
Guard retired pay.
I strongly support the increase in funds for drug interdiction
because cuts in resources devoted to drug interdiction in the early
1990s have greatly hindered Coast Guard efforts to fight the war on
drugs. The evidence is clear that effective drug interdiction raises
the price of drugs driving use down especially among casual users.
A study released last January by the Institute on Defense Analysis
confirmed this point. Interdiction is especially significant as we
focus on ways to eliminate teenage drug use. We must mount an
aggressive attack on drug smugglers if we intend to win the war on
drugs. The funds authorized in this bill will restore cuts to the Coast
Guard drug interdiction program and provide the level of drug
interdiction we need to keep drugs from reaching the shores of the
United States.
There are many things we as a Nation together can do to fight the
drugs and to participate in the war on drugs. There is treatment
programs, there is educational programs, there is a whole range of
things that we can do. Interdiction is an important part, an important
piece of that puzzle.
Title II of H.R. 2204 deals with several internal Coast Guard
personnel management matters. Title III of the bill addresses issues
related to navigation safety. This title amends the Ports and Waterways
Safety Act and subtitle II of title XLVI, United States Code, by
extending the territorial sea for these laws from 3 to 12 nautical
miles from shore. These amendments will enhance the Coast Guard's
ability to fully implement its port State control program and protect
U.S. waters and substandard foreign vessels.
Title IV of the legislation contains several miscellaneous
provisions, including enhancements to the Coast Guard vessel
identification system, several Coast Guard property transfers,
classification of financial responsibility requirements for oil spill
response vessels and several specific wavers of the U.S. coastwise
trade laws.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, as we go through the authorization of the
Coast Guard, we would like, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement],
and I, and the staff would like Members, when they think about the
Coast Guard, to think about the Arctic Ocean at midnight in February in
a driving storm, the Coast Guard is there.
Think of the environmental enforcement of our shores, our coastal
waters and our inland seas, the Coast Guard is there. Think of the
illegal immigrants enslaved in cargo ships by criminals from all around
this globe intercepted by young Coast Guard men and women on the high
rough seas in all kinds of weather.
Think about the protection of the coastal waters and the fisheries
which provide an abundance of food for this United States. Think about
the search and rescue missions that are taken throughout the entire
year, day and night, winter and summer, calm seas and rough seas, that
is what the Coast Guard does.
At the appropriate time, I will offer an en bloc amendment which
makes several technical corrections and includes several
noncontroversial amendments to the bill. I urge Members to support this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2204, the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 1997. Members on both sides of aisle support the
Coast Guard in this very bipartisan bill. The Coast Guard is on the
front lines every day saving lives and stopping drugs from entering our
country. They are the lead agency in the clean up of oil spills and
protect our fisheries within our 200-mile exclusive economic zone.
Mr. Chairman, these are not partisan issues. The gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], and I have worked closely with the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the ranking member, the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Oberstar], to craft a bill that will meet the needs
of the Coast Guard for fiscal year 1998.
H.R. 2204 authorizes approximately $3.9 billion for the Coast Guard
for fiscal year 1998, including $2.8 billion for their operations, $401
million for acquisition and construction of new ships and facilities,
$19.5 million for research and development and $21 million for
environmental compliance and restoration at Coast Guard facilities.
{time} 1830
The only difference between the amounts authorized in this bill and
the budget proposed by the President is that we have added
approximately $97 million for increased drug interdiction operations.
We have also worked closely with the administration to include much
of its legislative program for this year, including extending the
territorial sea from 3 miles to 12 miles.
We have also included a number of recommendations made by the
maritime industry, such as prohibiting people from interfering with the
safe operation of commercial vessels.
I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 2204, the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 1997.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. LoBiondo].
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to voice my strong support
for H.R. 2204, the Coast Guard Authorization Act.
In addition to funding for critical drug interdiction activities,
this bill contains a significant increase in the Coast Guard operating
expense account. This boost will allow the Coast Guard to do their job
more effectively.
In my district, Mr. Chairman, this will benefit the Coast Guard's
training center in Cape May, which is the only recruit training center
in our Nation. In addition, the completion of the new air station in
Atlantic City will ensure better and faster search and rescue missions
along the east coast.
I want to thank the Coast Guard for the important service that they
are performing in southern New Jersey and throughout our Nation. Their
small boat stations have been a great help to fishermen and
recreational boaters. Their rapid response saved the lives of two Air
National Guard pilots forced to eject into the Atlantic in a recent
accident.
In general, Mr. Chairman, the Coast Guard personnel have proven to be
very welcome members of the community in southern New Jersey and, in
fact, throughout our Nation where the Coast Guard has a presence.
And I would like to, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, congratulate and to
thank the Coast Guard for the great job that they are doing in so many
different ways. As the gentleman from Maryland has stated, they are
putting their lives on the line day in and day out, very often without
recognition, and I want to say how very proud we are of the great job
that they are doing.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Johnson.]
Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I too join in support of this
Coast Guard Authorization Act. As a Representative who lives and works
on the Great Lakes, and as a member of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard
and Maritime Transportation, I am pleased to see that this great
investment in the Coast Guard is being made today not only with the
full support of people here but the full support of a lot of people in
our districts.
Every day, as has been noted before, the Coast Guard is patrolling
our lakes and shores aiding navigation, performing search and rescue
missions, protecting the coastal resources, and fighting drug
trafficking.
The Coast Guard performs vital services for Great Lake States and
across the Nation. And as a member of the Great Lakes States, and of
particular importance to all of us who live along the coastline of the
Great Lakes, the bill includes nearly $5 million in the fiscal year
ahead for continued operation and maintenance of what is vital to our
area and to the Great Lakes, the ice-breaking cutter, the Mackinaw.
For as long as I have been on this Earth, for some 54 years, the
Mackinaw
[[Page H8894]]
has sailed the Great Lakes breaking ice so other ships may travel
safely and bring goods in and out of the ports, including the port of
Green Bay.
The bill also provides funding to explore future options to the now
aging icebreaker Mackinaw, and I am pleased to see this endeavor take
shape as we plan for the Coast Guard and with the Coast Guard for the
years ahead.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the passage of this bill as we show
our support not just for the Coast Guard in general but for the hard
work of the men and women of the Coast Guard, and in particular the
people in my district who build the great ships that they sail. As
someone who has grown up on the Great Lakes, I can appreciate the work
and the effort put in by the Coast Guard.
We have Coast Guard operations in Green Bay, Sturgeon Bay, Marinette,
and Washington Island in my district, a district that contains one
county that has more lighthouses than any other county in America. We
know full well the work of the Coast Guard on the Great Lakes, but also
wherever ships and wherever people are in trouble at sea, the Coast
Guard is there. I ask for my colleagues support for the Coast Guard
Authorization Act.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Visclosky].
(Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to call my colleagues' attention
to a potentially dangerous situation in southern Lake Michigan.
Currently, there is only one air rescue helicopter serving the entire
southern Lake Michigan region. Until 1995, that helicopter was located
at the Coast Guard air station in Chicago at Glenview, IL. In 1995, the
village of Glenview asked the Coast Guard to vacate Glenview's site
and, subsequently, the Coast Guard moved the facility to Muskegon, MI.
While the justification for a move is clear, I take issue with the
Coast Guard's choice for the location of a new facility. The new site
is simply too far away from where the majority of boating activities
and accidents occur in Lake Michigan. I believe safety should be the
primary factor guiding where the helicopter air rescue station serving
southern Lake Michigan should be situated.
The decision about where to base the Coast Guard's air rescue
helicopter must consider public safety. The Coast Guard's SAR standard
response time is 2 hours. It takes a helicopter centrally based in
Michigan at least 80 minutes to reach the Chicago area. It is clear
that 1 hour could mean the difference between life and death when
boaters are in an emergency situation in Lake Michigan. Simple common
sense dictates a response time of 15 to 20 minutes from a base on the
southern end of the lake would be safer.
Other factors for which the Coast Guard did not account for are
population and accident rates. According to July 1996 Census Bureau
statistics, the population of counties bordering Lake Michigan in
Indiana and Illinois is 6.4 million people. Michigan's shoreline
population in the region is only 715,000. It stands to reason that the
more populated areas of the Lake Michigan shoreline are at greater risk
for boating accidents.
In addition, northwest Indiana's casino boats, which now carry
thousands of people each year, and Chicago's dinner and sightseeing
boats, which carry over 1 million passengers per year, accentuate the
southern Lake Michigan region's need for a Coast Guard helicopter that
can respond very quickly in emergencies.
Recent events have highlighted the need for a helicopter rescue team
which can respond. Twenty-six people died in Lake Michigan between
October 1, 1995, and October 1, 1996, compared with just 4 deaths in
the previous year. Thirteen of those deaths were the result of boating
and jet skiing accidents and occurred in lake waters between Gary, IN,
and Waukegan, IL.
This is a serious problem and, for the sake of the tens of thousands
of people along the southern shore of Lake Michigan who use the lake
for recreational and commercial purposes, I would hope that this body
and the administration would act to improve their safety, safety that
has been seriously jeopardized since 1995.
I would simply add my thanks to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Gilchrest] for his earlier colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Davis] recognizing the situation we find ourselves in and his
commitment, and I am sure the commitment of the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Clement], to seek resources to make sure that the safety
of everyone along that southern shore of Lake Michigan is protected.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, to advise that while we have no more speakers on our side, I
do want to take just a few seconds to respond to this issue of the
helicopter.
There are limited resources no matter where we go in this country.
Each State has limited resources. Each county has limited resources.
The Federal Government has limited resources. The Coast Guard has
limited resources. So we try to spread those few limited resources to
the areas that we think need to be served the most because of the
dangers that have been associated with those areas.
The Coast Guard has chosen to move that helicopter. Now, we also
recognize that the Coast Guard does a fine job working with State and
county officials in all of these rescue missions, and that is what they
are going to do. And I want to assure the people in the gentleman's
area, I want to assure the people in the Great Lakes region, Lake
Michigan, that the Coast Guard is there and they are continuing to work
there and they are going to do the best job they can and they will
continue to work with local hospitals, with local States, with local
rescue missions with their helicopters that cover the area.
What we are going to do next year is to find out what areas the Coast
Guard is lacking, where they are underfunded because of increased
responsibilities and make those corrections. So I assure the gentleman
from Indiana that we are going to pursue this issue with all our
effort.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I just wish to thank the gentleman very,
very much.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Blagojevich].
Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, last year, to reiterate what the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. Visclosky] said moments ago, last year almost seven times more
people died on the southern side of Lake Michigan, or the connecting
rivers around the Chicago, IL, Gary, IN, area than in the previous
year.
And while the remarks of the previous speaker are certainly correct,
there are limited resources in today's environment, and there are
certainly a tremendous amount of needs, oftentimes competing needs. I
would simply argue that when we consider the urgency on the southern
side of Lake Michigan, there are compelling arguments and compelling
reasons for the Coast Guard to consider sending another search and
rescue helicopter to the area that serves southern Lake Michigan.
Because presently there is only one Coast Guard search and rescue
helicopter which serves the needs of southern Lake Michigan, and the
needs for that particular area are compelling. The population of
counties bordering Lake Michigan in Indiana and Illinois is 6.4 million
people.
Northwest Indiana, every year, has four casino boats that carry
thousands of people on any given day. Chicago's dinner and sightseeing
boats carry over 1 million passengers every year. There are more than
5,000 boats which harbor in Chicago. Every day over 1,000 flights,
every day over 1,000 flights come in and out of Chicago's three
airports in their final descent over Lake Michigan. Chicago O'Hare
happens to be among the busiest airports in the world.
Chicago fire and police department marine units are gravely
concerned, they have expressed this publicly, about their emergency
response capability if a plane were to crash into
[[Page H8895]]
Lake Michigan. On an average day in the summer there are roughly 2,000
boats in the water along the 70 miles of shoreline between Gary, IN,
and Waukegan, IL.
There are, on average, 10 to 20 Coast Guard search and rescue boats
which cover Gary, IN, north to Waukegan, IL. These are missions
routinely done, yet again we only have one search and rescue helicopter
serving that area.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky], the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], and myself have requested the
GAO to prepare an independent assessment to determine which location
best protects the safety of those who live and recreate in this area of
southern Lake Michigan. I would hope that this study will strongly
consider factors such as population and the number of accidents which
occur along the Chicago and Gary shoreline.
This is about saving lives and not about saving money, and I am
hopeful and confident that the GAO and the appropriators will consider
these factors.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak today, not on a matter that
was addressed by H.R. 2204, the Coast Guard Authorization Act, but on
one that was not addressed but should have been. Specifically, I refer
to the ill-advised relocation, by the U.S. Coast Guard [USCG], of its
helicopter rescue unit from Glenview, IL, to Muskegon, MI.
The effect of that move, which was prompted by the decision to close
the Glenview Naval Air Station, has been to increase, by about 30
minutes, the time it takes for a Coast Guard air rescue helicopter to
reach the Chicago lakefront in the case of an emergency. Moreover, that
rescue helicopter is now 15-20 minutes further removed from the area
north of Chicago, an area featuring over 60 lakes and one of America's
most popular recreational waterways, not to mention miles of Lake
Michigan shoreline often frequented by boating enthusiasts. As a matter
of fact, over 25,000 boating permits have been issued in the Fox River-
Chain o' Lakes area of northeastern Illinois alone.
Mr. Chairman, the significance of these figures is this. Thousands of
people boating near, or flying over, one of the most heavily populated
areas of America are at greater risk than they were a year ago. Not
only is the USCG's rescue helicopter further away, but it can operate
anywhere over lake Michigan whereas the local policy boats and fire
department helicopters usually stay within 4 miles of shore. Also,
there are two other considerations. First, whenever the USCG helicopter
does come down to the Chicago area for a search and rescue mission, it
cannot remain aloft as long as it did previously before it has to
refuel. Second, the USCG personnel manning that helicopter have more
specialized training and equipment than do the dedicated people who
operate local police boats and rescue helicopters.
Since any one of these considerations could delay or otherwise
compromise efforts to rescue people from the waters of lower Lake
Michigan, the Fox River, the Chain o' Lakes, and/or the other lakes
that dot northeastern Illinois and southeastern Wisconsin, I think you
can understand why so many people in or near that area are concerned
about the basing of this USCG helicopter rescue unit. To them, that
unit represents the margin between life and death in the event of a
serious boating or airplane accident, the potential for which has
become increasingly apparent lately.
During the past year, no less than 26 people have died in those
waters compared to four the year before. Nine of those fatalities
resulted from airplane crashes over Lake Michigan, a sobering
indication of what could happen if a commercial jet headed to or from
either O'Hare Airport or Midway were to suffer a similar fate. In such
a circumstance, we would want all available rescue resources on the
scene as soon as possible, just as we would in the event a sightseeing
boat were to sink or an aircraft were to disappear. But, so long as the
USCG's helicopter rescue unit continues to be based in a more thinly
populated area across the lake 85 miles from Waukegan, one of those
resources--that unit--may not be able to arrive in a timely fashion.
For that reason, I would like to see that concern dealt with before
too much more time elapses and we suddenly find ourselves confronted
with a tragedy. To my way of thinking, there are two sure ways in which
it could be addressed. One would be to relocate the USCG helicopter
unit presently based in Muskegon back to the southwestern shore of Lake
Michigan, preferably at a site in Lake County, IL. The other would be
to create a new unit and base it at a site on or near that same stretch
of shore. By mentioning these options, I do not mean to suggest the
absence of other alternatives, such as Meigs Field in downtown Chicago.
Instead, my intent is to underscore the availability of viable options,
to emphasize the need to bring the best of them to the fore as soon as
possible, and to express the hope that, before H.R. 2204 is sent to the
President for his consideration, progress will have been made to that
end.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, as we debate H.R. 2204, the Coast Guard
Reauthorization Act, I want to highlight a very important program
administered by the Coast Guard. I am referring to the Coast Guard's
ports and waterways safety system [PAWSS], a new follow-on program for
the vessel traffic service [VTS] 2000 project which was terminated in
October 1996.
The primary purpose of a vessel traffic service is to ensure the
safety of vessel traffic in U.S. ports and waterways. This program
saves lives, protects property and protects the marine environment by
giving mariners timely, accurate, and relevant information to avoid
groundings and collisions. The Coast Guard currently operates several
vessel traffic services in major port areas with much success and
support.
The PAWSS Program is an important next step to assure the safety and
efficiency of the Nation's ports and inland waterways.
My interest in the VTS began when on August 10, 1993, a collision
occurred in a navigation channel outside the entrance to Tampa Bay
between two tug/barges and a 357-foot freighter. This accident resulted
in a thunderous explosion that shot a fireball hundreds of feet into
the air.
In addition, approximately 380,000 gallons of oil spilled into the
Gulf of Mexico. The cost of the clean-up of this spill was enormous,
not to mention the damage to the environment.
This is not the first accident to occur at the mouth of Tampa Bay. In
May 1980, a freighter, traveling through dense fog, ran into the
Sunshine Skyward Bridge causing one of its spans to collapse. Some 40
people were killed. Had the VTS been in place prior to these
incidences, these disasters could have been avoided. Today, the port of
Tampa Bay is still without a VTS system.
The VTS represents a cost-effective answer to the prevention of these
types of environmental disasters. The 1993 accident resulted in over
$100 million in economic penalties and pollution cleanup costs.
Nationally, the cost of cleaning up accidents such as the 1993 oil
spill could easily outpace the cost of operating a VTS program.
Over 2 billion tons of cargo move in and out of all U.S. ports each
year. Almost half of this total consists of petroleum products, which
pose environmental hazards. Increased use of waterways by passenger and
recreational vessels only increases the risk of serious accidents on
our Nation's waterways.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Coast Guard's port
and waterways safety systems.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, during consideration today of H.R. 2204,
the Coast Guard Authorization Act, Members spoke on the floor about a
need for a study to determine the best location for the seasonal Coast
Guard air search and rescue facility for Southern Lake Michigan. There
is some controversy surrounding the recent relocation of the facility
from just north of Chicago to Muskegon, MI. I would like to take this
opportunity to enter into the record a letter from my good friend,
Chicago Alderman Ed Burke, on this subject. In his letter, he refers to
a recent article from the Chicago Sun-Times, which I would also like to
include in the record.
I encourage my colleagues to consider Alderman Burke's comments in
the context of today's debate.
City of Chicago,
Committee on Finance,
Chicago, IL, September 22, 1997.
Hon. William O. Lipinski,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Lipinski: The Chicago Sun-Times recently
published an article which reported a steep increase in the
number of deaths in southern Lake Michigan or connecting
rivers over the past year.
I have enclosed for your perusal a letter that I have
forwarded to Rear Admiral J.F. McGowan of the United States
Coast Guard, detailing my continuing and growing concerns
regarding the controversial relocation of an emergency
helicopter unit to Muskegon, Michigan.
Any assistance that you could provide in helping to
convince the U.S. Coast Guard to restore the ``rescue''
helicopter unit to a site closer to the Chicago Metropolitan
Area would be greatly appreciated.
Yours truly,
Edward M. Burke,
Chairman.
____
City of Chicago,
Committee on Finance,
Chicago, IL, September 16, 1997.
J.F. McGowan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard
District, Cleveland, OH.
Dear Rear Admiral McGowan: Enclosed please find a copy of a
recent article from the Chicago Sun-Times, which reports that
almost ``seven times more people have died in Lake Michigan
or connecting rivers'' since October 1, 1996.
[[Page H8896]]
According to the U.S. Coast Guard, twenty-six people have
died in southern Lake Michigan, compared with just four
people during the previous fiscal year, the article states. I
hope you would agree that this sharp increase in fatalities
is completely unacceptable. I also cannot help but observe
that these statistics skyrocketed after the U.S. Coast
Guard's decision to relocate its ``rescue'' helicopter unit
more than 100 nautical miles away from Chicago in Muskegon,
Michigan.
Therefore, I must request that you provide an explanation
as to why this ``rescue'' helicopter continues to remain in
Michigan while the number of deaths continue to spiral upward
in the Greater Chicago Metropolitan Area and Southern
Indiana.
In light of these troubling statistics, I also wish to
inquire whether the U.S. Coast Guard plans to reconsider its
controversial decision made last year to relocate this
``rescue'' helicopter unit.
Your prompt attention to this matter would be appreciated.
Yours truly,
Edward M. Burke,
Chairman.
____
[From the Chicago Sun Times, Sept. 9, 1997]
Lake Michigan Deaths Up Sharply This Year
(By Phillip J. O'Connor)
Almost seven times more people have died in Lake Michigan
or connecting rivers since Oct. 1 than in the previous year,
the Coast Guard said Monday.
Twenty-six people have died since Oct. 1, compared with
just four during the previous fiscal year, said Chief Scott
Kirwen, acting commander of the Coast Guard's South Chicago
station, which directs all agency rescues here. ``This was an
extremely high year for some reason.''
Nine people died in plane crashes, including seven killed
in the collision of two planes over the lake near 55th Street
on July 26. Two others were killed Feb. 20 and when a plane
crashed near Waukegan.
Four people died when they jumped off bridges into rivers.
Eleven deaths involved boating, and two people died in jet
skiing accidents.
The 26 deaths occurred in the area covered by the Coast
Guard here, stretching from Indiana Harbor in Whiting, Ind.,
to the middle of the lake, to north of Waukegan.
Kirwen said he doubted that moving the Coast Guard's
helicopter rescue unit from the former Glenview Naval Air
Training Station to Muskegon, Mich., last year would have
made any difference.
``A Chicago Fire Department helicopter responded in most of
these cases,'' he said. ``By the time the Coast Guard is
notified, the people have already disappeared under the
surface of the water.''
Some authorities and legislators have contended that moving
the unit out of the Chicago area cut the safety margin for
lake boaters, sailors and swimmers. It takes twice as long
for a helicopter based in Muskegon to reach boaters off
Chicago's lakefront and the North Shore.
Kirwen said that only two of the people who died--fishermen
found drowned in April after a fishing trip off Hammond--were
wearing life jackets. Nationally, nearly nine out of 10
drowning victims were not wearing life jackets, Kirwen said.
Life jackets can protect against hypothermia because they
allow a person to float without expending energy, Kirwen
said.
The Coast Guard uses a 50-50-50 rule in promoting use of
life jackets. ``If a person is in 50-degree water for 50
minutes, they have a 50 percent better chance to survive if
they are wearing a life jacket,'' Kirwen said.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for
the purposes of amendment and is considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 2204
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Coast Guard Authorization
Act of 1997''.
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION
Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 102. Authorized levels of military strength and training.
TITLE II--COAST GUARD MANAGEMENT
Sec. 201. Removal of cap on warrant officer severance pay.
Sec. 202. Authority to implement awards programs.
TITLE III--MARINE SAFETY
Sec. 301. Extension of territorial sea for certain laws.
Sec. 302. Penalties for interfering with the safe operation of a
vessel.
TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 401. Vessel identification system amendments.
Sec. 402. Conveyance of Coast Guard Reserve training facility,
Jacksonville, Florida.
Sec. 403. Documentation of certain vessels.
Sec. 404. Conveyance of Coast Guard facility in Nahant, Massachusetts.
Sec. 405. Unreasonable obstruction to navigation.
Sec. 406. Financial responsibility for oil spill response vessels.
Sec. 407. Conveyance of Coast Guard property to Jacksonville University
in Jacksonville, Florida.
Sec. 408. Penalty for violation of international safety convention.
Sec. 409. Coast Guard City, USA.
Sec. 410. Conveyance of Communication Station, Boston Marshfield
Receiver Site, Massachusetts.
TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION
SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Funds are authorized to be appropriated for necessary
expenses of the Coast Guard, as follows:
(1) For the operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard--
(A) for fiscal year 1998, $2,790,700,000; and
(B) for fiscal year 1999, $2,854,700,000; of which
$25,000,000 shall be derived each fiscal year from the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of
section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
(2) For the acquisition, construction, rebuilding, and
improvement of aids to navigation, shore and offshore
facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment
related thereto--
(A) for fiscal year 1998, $401,000,000, of which $2,000,000
shall be made available for concept evaluation for a
replacement vessel for the Coast Guard icebreaker MACKINAW,
which concept evaluation shall be transmitted to the Congress
not later than April 1, 1998; and
(B) for fiscal year 1999, $440,000,000;
to remain available until expended, of which $20,000,000
shall be derived each fiscal year from the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of section
1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
(3) For research, development, test, and evaluation of
technologies, materials, and human factors directly relating
to improving the performance of the Coast Guard's mission in
support of search and rescue, aids to navigation, marine
safety, marine environmental protection, enforcement of laws
and treaties, ice operations, oceanographic research, and
defense readiness--
(A) for fiscal year 1998, $19,500,000; and
(B) for fiscal year 1999, $19,000,000;
to remain available until expended, of which $1,000,000 may
be made available in fiscal year 1998 for fuel cell research,
and of which $3,500,000 shall be derived each fiscal year
from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the
purposes of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of
1990.
(4) For retired pay (including the payment of obligations
otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for this
purpose), payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family
Protection and Survivor Benefit Plans, and payments for
medical care of retired personnel and their dependents under
chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code--
(A) for fiscal year 1998, $652,000,000; and
(B) for fiscal year 1999, $692,000,000.
(5) For alteration or removal of bridges over navigable
waters of the United States constituting obstructions to
navigation, and for personnel and administrative costs
associated with the Bridge Alteration Program--
(A) for fiscal year 1998, $17,300,000; and
(B) for fiscal year 1999, $20,000,000,
to remain available until expended.
(6) For environmental compliance and restoration at Coast
Guard facilities (other than parts and equipment associated
with operations and maintenance), $21,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 1998 and 1999, to remain available until
expended.
SEC. 102. AUTHORIZED LEVELS OF MILITARY STRENGTH AND
TRAINING.
(a) Active Duty Strength.--The Coast Guard is authorized an
end-of-year strength for active duty personnel of--
(1) 37,944 as of September 30, 1998; and
(2) 38,038 as of September 30, 1999.
(b) Military Training Student Loads.--The Coast Guard is
authorized average military training student loads as
follows:
(1) For recruit and special training--
(A) for fiscal year 1998, 1,424 student years; and
(B) for fiscal year 1999, 1,424 student years.
(2) For flight training--
(A) for fiscal year 1998, 98 student years; and
(B) for fiscal year 1999, 98 student years.
(3) For professional training in military and civilian
institutions--
(A) for fiscal year 1998, 283 student years; and
(B) for fiscal year 1999, 283 student years.
(4) For officer acquisition--
(A) for fiscal year 1998, 814 student years; and
(B) for fiscal year 1999, 810 student years.
TITLE II--COAST GUARD MANAGEMENT
SEC. 201. REMOVAL OF CAP ON WARRANT OFFICER SEVERANCE PAY.
Section 286a(d) of title 14, United States Code, is amended
by striking the last sentence.
SEC. 202. AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT AWARDS PROGRAMS.
Section 93 of title 14, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (s), by striking the comma at the end and
inserting a semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (t), by redesignating subparagraphs (1)
and (2) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
[[Page H8897]]
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (a) through (v) in order as
paragraphs (1) through (21);
(4) by redesignating the existing text (as so amended) as
subsection (a); and
(5) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) The Commandant may provide for the honorary
recognition of individuals and organizations, including State
and local governments and commercial and nonprofit
organizations, that significantly contribute to Coast Guard
programs, missions, or operations, by awarding plaques,
medals, trophies, badges, and similar items to acknowledge
that contribution.''.
TITLE III--MARINE SAFETY
SEC. 301. EXTENSION OF TERRITORIAL SEA FOR CERTAIN LAWS.
(a) Ports and Waterways Safety Act.--Section 3 of the Ports
and Waterways Safety Act (33 U.S.C. 1222) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(5) `Navigable waters of the United States' includes all
waters of the territorial sea of the United States as
described in Presidential Proclamation 5928 of December 27,
1988.''.
(b) Title 46, United States Code.--Subtitle II of title 46,
United States Code, is amended as follows:
(1) In section 2101--
(A) by redesignating paragraph (17a) as paragraph (17b);
and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (17) the following:
``(17a) `navigable waters of the United States' includes
all waters of the territorial sea of the United States as
described in Presidential Proclamation 5928 of December 27,
1988.''.
(2) In section 2301, by inserting ``(including the
territorial sea of the United States as described in
Presidential Proclamation 5928 of December 27, 1988)'' after
``of the United States''.
(3) In section 4102(e), by striking ``on the high seas''
and inserting ``beyond 3 nautical miles from the baseline
from which the territorial sea of the United States is
measured''.
(4) In section 4301(a), by inserting ``(including the
territorial sea of the United States as described in
Presidential Proclamation 5928 of December 27, 1988)'' after
``of the United States''.
(5) In section 4502(a)(7), by striking ``on vessels that
operate on the high seas'' and inserting ``beyond 3 nautical
miles from the baseline from which the territorial sea of the
United States is measured''.
(6) In section 4506(b), by striking paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(2) is operating--
``(A) in internal waters of the United States, or
``(B) within 3 nautical miles from the baseline from which
the territorial sea of the United States is measured.''.
(7) In section 8502(a)(3), by striking ``not on the high
seas'' and inserting: ``not beyond 3 nautical miles from the
baseline from which the territorial sea of the United States
is measured''.
(8) In section 8503(a), by striking paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(2) is operating--
``(A) in internal waters of the United States, or
``(B) within 3 nautical miles from the baseline from which
the territorial sea of the United States is measured.''.
SEC. 302. PENALTIES FOR INTERFERING WITH THE SAFE OPERATION
OF A VESSEL.
(a) In General.--Section 2302 of title 46, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by amending the section heading to read as follows:
``Sec. 2302. Penalties for negligent operations and
interfering with safe operation'';
and
(2) in subsection (a) by striking ``that endangers'' and
inserting ``or interfering with the safe operation of a
vessel, so as to endanger''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 23 of title 46, United States Code, is
amended by striking the item relating to section 2302 and
inserting the following:
``2302. Penalties for negligent operations and interfering with safe
operation.''.
TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 401. VESSEL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM AMENDMENTS.
Title 46, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 12102(a), by striking ``or is not titled in
a State'';
(2) in section 12301, by adding at the end the following:
``(c) A documented vessel shall not be titled or required
to display numbers under this chapter by a State, and any
certificate of title issued by a State for a documented
vessel shall be surrendered in accordance with regulations
prescribed by the Secretary.
``(d) The Secretary may approve the surrender under
subsection (c) of a certificate of title covered by a
preferred mortgage under section 31322(d) of this title only
if the mortgagee consents.'';
(3) in section 31322--
(A) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
``(b) Any indebtedness secured by a preferred mortgage that
is filed or recorded under this chapter, or that is subject
to a mortgage or instrument that is deemed to be a preferred
mortgage under subsection (d) of this section, may have any
rate of interest to which the parties agree.''; and
(B) in subsection (d), by amending paragraph (3) to read as
follows:
``(3) A preferred mortgage under this subsection continues
to be a preferred mortgage even if the vessel is no longer
titled in the State where the mortgage or instrument granting
a security interest became a preferred mortgage under this
subsection.''; and
(4) in section 31325--
(A) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``a vessel titled in
a State,'' after ``a vessel to be documented under chapter
121 of this title,'';
(B) in subsection (b)(3), by inserting ``a vessel titled in
a State,'' after ``a vessel for which an application for
documentation is filed under chapter 121 of this title,'';
and
(C) in subsection (c), by inserting ``a vessel titled in a
State,'' after ``a vessel to be documented under chapter 121
of this title,''.
SEC. 402. CONVEYANCE OF COAST GUARD RESERVE TRAINING
FACILITY, JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law--
(1) the land and improvements thereto comprising the Coast
Guard Reserve training facility in Jacksonville, Florida, is
deemed to be surplus property; and
(2) the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall dispose of all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to
that property, by sale, at fair market value.
(b) Right of First Refusal.--Before a sale is made under
subsection (a) to any other person, the Commandant of the
Coast Guard shall give to the city of Jacksonville, Florida,
the right of first refusal to purchase all or any part of the
property required to be sold under that subsection.
SEC. 403. DOCUMENTATION OF CERTAIN VESSELS.
(a) General Waiver.--Notwithstanding section 27 of the
Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), section 8 of
the Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and sections
12106 and 12108 of title 46, United States Code, the
Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of
documentation with appropriate endorsement for each of the
following vessels:
(1) SEAGULL (United States official number 1038605).
(2) BAREFOOT CONTESA (United States official number
285410).
(3) PRECIOUS METAL (United States official number 596316).
(4) BLUE HAWAII (State of Florida registration number
FL0466KC).
(5) SOUTHERN STAR (United States official number 650774).
(6) KEEWAYDIN (United States official number 662066).
(7) W.G. JACKSON (United States official number 1047199).
(8) The vessel known as hopper barge E-15 (North Carolina
State official number 264959).
(9) MIGHTY JOHN III (formerly the NIAGARA QUEEN, Canadian
registration number 318746).
(10) MAR Y PAZ (United States official number 668179).
(11) SAMAKEE (State of New York registration number NY 4108
FK).
(12) NAWNSENSE (United States official number 977593).
(b) Ownership of Vessel PHILADELPHIA.--Notwithstanding
section 2 of the Shipping Act, 1916 (46 App. U.S.C. 802, 803)
and section 12102(a)(4) of title 46, United States Code, the
parent corporation of the corporation holding title to the
vessel PHILADELPHIA (United States official number 654192) on
May 3, 1995, is deemed on that date and thereafter to be a
citizen of the United States for purposes of owning
corporations whose vessels are eligible for documentation
under chapter 121 of title 46, United States Code, with a
coastwise endorsement, if--
(1) the chief executive officer of the parent corporation
is a citizen of the United States;
(2) the chairman of the board of directors of the parent
corporation is a citizen of the United States, and the number
of its directors who are noncitizens does not exceed a
minority of the number necessary to constitute a quorum;
(3) the parent corporation meets the stock ownership
requirements of section 2 of the Shipping Act, 1916, for
operating a vessel in the coastwise trade;
(4) the corporation holding title is otherwise eligible to
own a vessel operated in the coastwise trade; and
(5) the vessel is otherwise eligible to be operated in the
coastwise trade.
(c) SUNMAR SKY.--Section 1120(g) of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-324; 110 Stat.
3978) is amended by inserting ``SUNMAR SKY (United States
official number 683227),'' after ``vessels''.
SEC. 404. CONVEYANCE OF COAST GUARD FACILITY IN NAHANT,
MASSACHUSETTS.
(a) Authority To Convey.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation may
convey, by an appropriate means of conveyance, all right,
title, and interest of the United States in and to the
property comprising United States Coast Guard Recreation
Facility Nahant, Massachusetts, to the town of Nahant,
Massachusetts.
(2) Identification of property.--The Secretary may
identify, describe, and determine the property to be conveyed
under this section.
(b) Terms and Conditions.--Any conveyance of property under
this section shall be made--
(1) without payment of consideration; and
(2) subject to the terms and conditions the Secretary
considers appropriate.
SEC. 405. UNREASONABLE OBSTRUCTION TO NAVIGATION.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the liftbridge
over the back channel of the Schuylkill River in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is deemed to unreasonably
obstruct navigation for purposes of the Act entitled ``An Act
to provide for the alteration of certain bridges over
navigable waters of the United States, for the apportionment
of the cost of such alterations between the United States and
the owners of such bridges, and for other purposes'',
approved June 21, 1940 (chapter 409; 33 U.S.C. 511-523),
popularly known as the ``Hobbs Bridge Act'' and the ``Truman-
Hobbs Bridge Act''.
[[Page H8898]]
SEC. 406. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR OIL SPILL RESPONSE
VESSELS.
Section 1004(a)(2) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33
U.S.C. 2704(a)(2)) is amended by inserting ``including a
vessel responding to a discharge of substantial threat of a
discharge of oil,'' after ``vessel,''.
SEC. 407. CONVEYANCE OF COAST GUARD PROPERTY TO JACKSONVILLE
UNIVERSITY IN JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA.
(a) Authority To Convey.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation may convey
to Jacksonville University, located in Jacksonville, Florida,
without consideration, all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to the property comprising the Long
Branch Rear Range Light, Jacksonville, Florida.
(2) Identification of property.--The Secretary may
identify, describe, and determine the property to be conveyed
under this section.
(b) Terms and Conditions.--Any conveyance of any property
under this section shall be made--
(1) subject to the terms and conditions the Commandant may
consider appropriate; and
(2) subject to the condition that all right, title, and
interest in and to property conveyed shall immediately revert
to the United States if the property, or any part thereof,
ceases to be used by Jacksonville University.
SEC. 408. PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL SAFETY
CONVENTION.
(a) In General.--Section 2302 of title 46, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(e)(1) A vessel may not transport cargoes sponsored by
the United States Government if--
``(A) the vessel has been detained by the Secretary for
violation of an international safety convention to which the
United States is a party, and the Secretary has published
notice of that detention in an electronic form, including the
name of the owner of the vessel; or
``(B) the owner of the vessel has had more than one vessel
detained by the Secretary for violation of an international
safety convention to which the United States is a party, and
the Secretary has published notice of that detention in an
electronic form, including the name of the owner of the
vessel.
``(2) The prohibition in paragraph (1) expires for a vessel
1 year after the date of the publication in electronic form
on which the prohibition is based.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
takes effect January 1, 1998.
SEC. 409. COAST GUARD CITY, USA.
The community of Grand Haven, Michigan, shall be recognized
as ``Coast Guard City, USA''.
SEC. 410. CONVEYANCE OF COMMUNICATION STATION BOSTON
MARSHFIELD RECEIVER SITE, MASSACHUSETTS.
(a) Authority To Convey.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation may
convey, by an appropriate means of conveyance, all right,
title, and interest of the United States in and to the Coast
Guard Communication Station Boston Marshfield Receiver Site,
Massachusetts, to the Town of Marshfield, Massachusetts.
(2) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not convey under this
section the land on which is situated the communications
tower and the microwave building facility of that station.
(3) Identification of property.--(A) The Secretary may
identify, describe, and determine the property to be conveyed
to the Town under this section.
(B) The Secretary shall determine the exact acreage and
legal description of the property to be conveyed under this
section by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary. The cost
of the survey shall be borne by the Town.
(b) Terms and Conditions.--Any conveyance of property under
this section shall be made--
(1) without payment of consideration; and
(2) subject to the following terms and conditions:
(A) The Secretary may reserve utility, access, and any
other appropriate easements on the property conveyed for the
purpose of operating, maintaining, and protecting the
communications tower and the microwave building facility.
(B) The Town and its successors and assigns shall, at their
own cost and expense, maintain the property conveyed under
this section in a proper, substantial, and workmanlike manner
as necessary to ensure the operation, maintenance, and
protection of the communications tower and the microwave
building facility.
(C) Any other terms and conditions the Secretary considers
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
The CHAIRMAN. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in
recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has printed in
the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those amendments will
be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a demand for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
Are there any amendments to the bill?
Amendments Offered by Mr. Gilchrest
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I offer several amendments.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendments offered by Mr. Gilchrest:
Page 4, beginning at line 9, strike ``of which'' and all
that follows through ``research, and'' at line 11.
Page 10, before line 20, insert the following new section
(and conform the table of contents in section 2 accordingly):
SEC. 303. GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
Section 9307 of title 46, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``Sec. 9307. Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee
``(a) The Secretary shall establish a Great Lakes Pilotage
Advisory Committee. The Committee--
``(1) may review proposed Great Lakes Pilotage regulations
and policies and make recommendations to the Secretary that
the Committee considers appropriate;
``(2) may advise, consult with, report to, and make
recommendations to the Secretary on matters relating to Great
Lakes pilotage;
``(3) may make available to the Congress recommendations
that the Committee makes to the Secretary; and
``(4) shall meet at the call of--
``(A) the Secretary, who shall call such a meeting at least
once during each calendar year; or
``(B) a majority of the Committee.
``(b)(1) The Committee shall consist of 7 members appointed
by the Secretary in accordance with this subsection, each of
whom has at least 5 years practical experience in maritime
operations. The term of each member is for a period of not
more than 5 years, specified by the Secretary. Before filling
a position on the Committee, the Secretary shall publish a
notice in the Federal Register soliciting nominations for
membership on the Committee.
``(2) The membership of the Committee shall include--
``(A) 3 members who are practicing Great Lakes pilots and
who reflect a regional balance;
``(B) 1 member representing the interests of vessel
operators that contract for Great Lakes pilotage services;
``(C) 1 member representing the interests of Great Lakes
ports;
``(D) 1 member representing the interests of shippers whose
cargoes are transported through Great Lakes ports; and
``(E) 1 member representing the interests of the general
public, who is an independent expert on the Great Lakes
maritime industry.
``(c)(1) The Committee shall elect one of its members as
the Chairman and one of its members as the Vice Chairman. The
Vice Chairman shall act as Chairman in the absence or
incapacity of the Chairman, or in the event of a vacancy in
the office of the Chairman.
``(2) The Secretary shall, and any other interested agency
may, designate a representative to participate as an observer
with the Committee. The representatives shall, as
appropriate, report to and advise the Committee on matters
relating to Great Lakes pilotage. The Secretary's designated
representative shall act as the executive secretary of the
Committee and shall perform the duties set forth in section
10(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 App. U.S.C.).
``(d)(1) The Secretary shall, whenever practicable, consult
with the Committee before taking any significant action
relating to Great Lakes pilotage.
``(2) The Secretary shall consider the information, advice,
and recommendations of the Committee in formulating policy
regarding matters affecting Great Lakes pilotage.
``(e)(1) A member of the Committee, when attending meetings
of the Committee or when otherwise engaged in the business of
the Committee, is entitled to receive--
``(A) compensation at a rate fixed by the Secretary, not
exceeding the daily equivalent of the current rate of basic
pay in effect for GS-18 of the General Schedule under section
5332 of title 5 including travel time; and
``(B) travel or transportation expenses under section 5703
of title 5.
``(2) A member of the Committee shall not be considered to
be an officer or employee of the United States for any
purpose based on their receipt of any payment under this
subsection.
``(f)(1) The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.)
applies to the Committee, except that the Committee
terminates on September 30, 2003.
``(2) 2 years before the termination date set forth in
paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Committee shall submit
to the Congress its recommendation regarding whether the
Committee should be renewed and continued beyond the
termination date.''.
Page 11, line 3, insert ``by a State'' after ``titled''.
Page 11, line 4, strike ``by a State''.
Page 11, strike lines 17 through 19, and insert the
following:
to a mortgage, security agreement, or instrument granting a
security interest that is deemed to be a preferred mortgage
under subsection (d) of this section, may have any rate of
interest to which the parties agree.'';
Page 11, after line 19, insert the following:
(B) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ``mortgage or
instrument'' each place it appears and inserting ``mortgage,
security agreement, or instrument'';
(C) in subsection (d)(2), by striking ``mortgages or
instruments'' and inserting ``mortgages, security agreements,
or instruments''; and
[[Page H8899]]
Page 11, line 20, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(D)''.
Page 11, line 24, insert ``, security agreement,'' after
``mortgage''.
Page 14, after line 15, insert the following new
paragraphs:
(13) ELMO (State of Florida registration number FL5337BG).
(14) MANA-WANUI (United States official number 286657).
(15) OLD JOE (formerly TEMPTRESS; United States official
number 991150).
(16) M/V BAHAMA PRIDE (United States official number
588647).
(17) WINDWISP (United States official number 571621).
(18) SOUTHLAND (United States official number 639705).
(19) FJORDING (United States official number 594363).
(20) M/V SAND ISLAND (United States official number
542918).
(21) PACIFIC MONARCH (United States official number
557467).
(22) FLAME (United States official number 279363).
(23) DULARGE (United States official number 653762).
Page 15, after line 19, insert the following new
subsections:
(d) Documentation of the Vessel PRINCE NOVA.--
(1) Documentation authorized.--Notwithstanding section 27
of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883),
section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289),
and section 12106 of title 46, United States Code, the
Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of
documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in
the coastwise trade for the vessel PRINCE NOVA (Canadian
registration number 320804).
(2) Expiration of certificate.--A certificate of
documentation issued for the vessel under paragraph (1) shall
expire unless--
(A) the vessel undergoes conversion, reconstruction,
repair, rebuilding, or retrofitting in a shipyard located in
the United States;
(B) the cost of that conversion, reconstruction, repair,
rebuilding, or retrofitting is not less than the greater of--
(i) three times the purchase value of the vessel before the
conversion, reconstruction, repair, rebuilding, or
retrofitting; or
(ii) $4,200,000; and
(C) not less than an average of $1,000,000 is spent
annually in a shipyard located in the United States for
conversion, reconstruction, repair, rebuilding, or
retrofitting of the vessel until the total amount of the cost
required under subparagraph (B) is spent.
(e) Documentation of Vessel COLUMBUS.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant
Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), sections 12102 and
12106 of title 46, United States Code, and the endorsement
limitation in section 5501(a)(2)(B) of Public Law 102-587,
and subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary of Transportation
may issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate
endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the
vessel COLUMBUS (United States official number 590658).
(2) Limitation.--Coastwise trade referred to in paragraph
(1) may not include the transportation of dredged material
from a project in which the stated intent of the Corps of
Engineers, in its Construction Solicitation, or of another
contracting entity, is that the dredged material is to be
deposited--
(A) above mean high tide for the purpose of beach
nourishment; or
(B) into a fill area for the purpose of creation of land
for an immediate use other than disposal of the dredged
material.
Page 17, line 5, strike ``discharge of'' and insert
``discharge or''.
Page 18, beginning on line 8, strike ``cargoes sponsored by
the United States Government'' and insert ``Government-
impelled cargoes''.
Page 18, beginning at line 16, strike ``the owner of the
vessel has had more than one vessel detained'' and insert
``the operator of the vessel has on more than one occasion
had a vessel detained''.
Page 18, strike lines 22 through 24 and insert the
following:
``(2) The prohibition in paragraph (1) expires for a vessel
on the earlier of--
``(A) 1 year after the date of the publication in
electronic form on which the prohibition is based; or
``(B) any date on which the owner or operator of the vessel
prevails in an appeal of the violation on which the detention
is based.''.
Page 20, after line 22, add the following new sections (and
conform the table of contents in section 2 accordingly):
SEC. 411. CLARIFICATION OF LIABILITY OF PERSONS ENGAGING IN
OIL SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE ACTIVITIES.
(a) Clarification of Liability for Preventing Substantial
Threat of Discharge.--Section 311 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(8) by striking ``to minimize or
mitigate damage'' and inserting ``to prevent, minimize, or
mitigate damage'';
(2) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of
subsection (a)(23), by striking the period at the end of
subsection (a)(24) and inserting ``; and'', and by adding at
the end of subsection (a) the following:
``(25) `removal costs' means--
``(A) the costs of removal of oil or a hazardous substance
that are incurred after it is discharged; and
``(B) in any case in which there is a substantial threat of
a discharge of oil or a hazardous substance, the costs to
prevent, minimize, or mitigate that threat.''; and
(3) in subsection (c)(4)(A), by striking the period at the
end and inserting the following: ``relating to a discharge or
a substantial threat of a discharge of oil or a hazardous
substance.''.
(b) Oil Spill Mechanical Removal.--Section 311(a)(2) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and (C)'' and inserting ``, (C)''; and
(2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the
following: ``, and (D) discharges incidental to mechanical
removal authorized by the President under subsection (c) of
this section''.
(c) Sense of the Congress Regarding Oil Spill Response
Actions.--It is the sense of the Congress that, under the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990, the President should ensure that
liability concerns regarding response actions to remove a
discharge, or to mitigate or prevent the threat of a
discharge, do not deter an expeditious or effective response,
by promulgating guidelines in accordance with applicable
Federal law, as soon as possible, clarifying that a person
who takes any response action consistent with the National
Contingency Plan, including the applicable fish and wildlife
response plan, or as otherwise directed by the President, to
prevent or mitigate the environmental effects of a discharge
or a threat of a discharge should not be held liable for the
violation of fish and wildlife laws, unless the person is
grossly negligent or engages in willful misconduct.
SEC. 412. VESSEL DEEMED TO BE A RECREATIONAL VESSEL.
(a) In General.--The vessel described in subsection (b) is
deemed for all purposes, including title 46, United States
Code, and all regulations thereunder, to be a recreational
vessel of less than 300 gross tons, if--
(1) it does not carry cargo or passengers for hire; and
(2) it does not engage in commercial fisheries or
oceanographic research.
(b) Vessel Described.--The vessel referred to in subsection
(a) is the vessel TURMOIL (British Official number 726767).
SEC. 413. LAND CONVEYANCE, COAST GUARD STATION OCRACOKE,
NORTH CAROLINA.
(a) Authority To Convey.--The Secretary of Transportation
may convey, without consideration, to the State of North
Carolina (in this section referred to as the ``State''), all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a
parcel of real property, together with any improvements
thereon, in Ocracoke, North Carolina, consisting of such
portion of the Coast Guard Station Ocracoke, North Carolina,
as the Secretary considers appropriate for purposes of the
conveyance.
(b) Conditions.--The conveyance under subsection (a) shall
be subject to the following conditions:
(1) That the State accept the property to be conveyed under
that subsection subject to such easements or rights of way in
favor of the United States as the Secretary considers to be
appropriate for--
(A) utilities;
(B) access to and from the property;
(C) the use of the boat launching ramp on the property; and
(D) the use of pier space on the property by search and
rescue assets.
(2) That the State maintain the property in a manner so as
to preserve the usefulness of the easements or rights of way
referred to in paragraph (1).
(3) That the State utilize the property for transportation,
education, environmental, or other public purposes.
(c) Reversion.--(1) If the Secretary determines at any time
that the property conveyed under subsection (a) is not being
used in accordance with subsection (b), all right, title, and
interest in and to the property, including any improvements
thereon, shall revert to the United States, and the United
States shall have the right of immediate entry thereon.
(2) Upon reversion under paragraph (1), the property shall
be under the administrative jurisdiction of the Administrator
of General Services.
(d) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the property conveyed under subsection (a),
and any easements or rights of way granted under subsection
(b)(1), shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the
Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by the
State.
(e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions with respect to
the conveyance under subsection (a), and any easements or
rights of way granted under subsection (b)(1), as the
Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of
the United States.
SEC. 414. CONVEYANCE OF COAST GUARD PROPERTY IN SAULT SAINTE
MARIE, MICHIGAN.
(a) Requirement to Convey.--The Secretary of Transportation
(in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall
promptly convey, without consideration, to American Legion
Post No. 3 in Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, all right, title,
and interest of the United States in and to the parcel of
real
[[Page H8900]]
property described in section 202 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-640), as amended by
section 323 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(Public Law 102-580), comprising approximately 0.565 acres,
together with any improvements thereon.
(b) Condition.--The conveyance under subsection (a) shall
be subject to the condition that the property be used as a
clubhouse for the American Legion Post No. 3.
(c) Reversion.--(1) If the Secretary determines at any time
that the property conveyed under subsection (a) is not being
used in accordance with subsection (b), all right, title, and
interest in and to the property, including any improvements
thereon, shall revert to the United States, and the United
States shall have the right of immediate entry thereon.
(2) Upon reversion under paragraph (1), the property shall
be under the administrative jurisdiction of the Administrator
of General Services.
(d) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the property conveyed under subsection (a)
shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the
Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by the
American Legion Post No. 3.
(e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions with respect to
the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
SEC. 415. DRY BULK CARGO RESIDUE.
(a) Dry Bulk Cargo Residue.--Section 3 of the Act to
Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1902) is amended by
adding the following subsection at the end thereof:
``(h) Discharge of Residue of Dry Bulk Cargo in Certain
Navigable Waters and Waters of the Great Lakes.--(1)
Notwithstanding any provision of this Act, the Secretary may
allow, under conditions and standards prescribed by
regulation--
``(A) vessels to discharge residue of dry bulk cargo into
the waters of the Great Lakes under the jurisdiction of the
United States; and
``(B) vessels of the United States to discharge residue of
dry bulk cargo into the waters of the Great Lakes System
governed by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978
and the 1987 Protocol thereto, under the jurisdiction of the
Government of Canada or other waters governed by the Boundary
Waters Treaty of 1909 under the jurisdiction of the
Government of Canada.
``(2) Any regulation issued under this subsection shall be
consistent with the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of
1978 and the 1987 Protocol thereto, and the Boundary Waters
Treaty of 1909, and shall be developed in consultation with
the Government of Canada, under the general guidance of the
Secretary of State, and with the concurrence of the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and in
consultation with appropriate Federal agencies, including the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
``(3) Any regulations issued under this subsection shall be
reviewed by the Secretary no less often than every 5 years to
determine whether such regulations are consistent with the
water quality goals for the Great Lakes.''.
(b) Definition.--Section 2 of the Act to Prevent Pollution
from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901) is amended
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (9), (10), (11), and (12)
as (10), (11), (12), and (13), respectively and by inserting
the following new paragraph after paragraph (8):
``(9) `residue to dry bulk cargo' includes any residue or
residues of dry bulk cargo generated in the customary
operation of commercial vessels, including iron ore, coal,
coke, salt, grain, stones, gravel, sand, clay, and slag, but
does not include, even if associated with the aforementioned
materials, any--
``(A) plastic, as defined in the convention,
``(B) oil or hazardous substance, as defined under section
311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1321), or
``(C) hazardous substance, as defined in section 101(14) of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. 9601(14)).''.
Mr. GILCHREST (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendments be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Maryland?
There was no objection.
{time} 1845
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, this amendment was developed and agreed
to on a bipartisan basis. The amendment contains miscellaneous
amendments, many of which are technical or clarifying in nature. The
amendment includes a requirement for the Secretary of Transportation to
appoint members to the Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee,
amendments to implement the Coast Guard Vessel Identification System,
and various Jones Act waivers and Coast Guard property transfers. I
urge the Members to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment was developed and agreed to on a
bipartisan basis. The amendment contains miscellaneous amendments, many
of which are technical or clarifying in nature. The amendment includes
a requirement for the Secretary of Transportation to appoint members to
the Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee, amendments to implement
the Coast Guard Vessel Identification System, and various ``Jones Act''
waivers and Coast Guard property transfers.
I urge the members to support this amendment.
New section 411(a) of the bill, as contained in this amendment,
amends provisions in section 311 of the FWPCA, regarding liability
immunity for measures to respond to oil spills, to clarify that such
immunity also applies to measures to prevent, minimize or mitigate the
substantial threat of a discharge. The intent of this amendment is to
address oil spill prevention and response. Nothing in the amendment
changes the current relationship between the FWPCA and the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of
1980, as amended, regarding hazardous substances. For example, there is
no intent to supersede or modify the effect of section 304 of such Act.
Section 411(b) amends the definition of discharge in section 311 of
the FWPCA to exclude discharges that are incidental to mechanical
removal authorized by the President under section 311. Mechanical
removal activities, such as the ``decanting'' or separation of water
from recovered oil, usually involve the return of excess water into the
response area. However, such excess water almost necessarily includes a
``de minimis'' amount of oil. Unfortunately, current provisions and
policies regarding ``harmful quantities'' in section 311 could
potentially apply to such de minimis discharges, creating a
disincentive to effective oil spill response. The amendment is intended
to remove this potential disincentive.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the en bloc
amendments offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest]. This
amendment was developed on a bipartisan basis to make technical
corrections to the bill and to add provisions requested by Members
since the bill was reported from committee in August. The additions to
the bill include establishing a Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory
Committee, allowing more vessels into our coastwise trade, provisions
to promote oil spill response vessels, and a few excess property
transfers. I believe this amendment will improve Coast Guard programs
and I urge its adoption.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
The amendments were agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Upton
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Upton:
Page 20, after line 22, insert the following (and conform
the table of contents in section 2 accordingly):
SEC. 411. MAINTENANCE OF FOGHORNS.
The Secretary of Transportation shall take such actions as
may be necessary to ensure that foghorns at the following
ports are in working order:
(1) St. Joseph, Michigan.
(2) South Haven, Michigan.
(3) Grand Haven, Michigan.
(4) Muskegon, Michigan.
(5) Pentwater, Michigan.
(6) Lundington, Michigan.
(7) Frankfort, Michigan.
(8) Michigan City, Indiana.
(9) Saugatuck, Michigan.
(10) Marquette, Michigan.
Mr. UPTON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I very much
appreciate the help of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] and
the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement] in discussions for much of
today. This amendment is about foghorns. As I was back in my district,
as most of us were these last 10 days, my district is along the shore
of Lake Michigan, the Coast Guard currently has a proposal to end the
maintenance and in essence stop foghorns in a number of ports along
Lake Michigan. What this amendment does is a very simple amendment, it
just requires the Secretary of Transportation take action as necessary
to ensure that the foghorns at 10 ports along Lake Michigan are in
working order.
[[Page H8901]]
We have been talking to the Members of Congress on both sides of the
aisle whose ports are impacted. They all, Republicans and Democrats
alike, support this bill. I would urge its passage. I am not going to
ask for a recorded vote. I want to thank the staff on the committee as
well as again the two gentlemen that I mentioned before in supporting
this amendment.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for
yielding. I support him in his efforts to restore and to maintain the
foghorns along the shores of Lake Michigan. In another effort of the
Coast Guard that was discussed briefly in the debate, in general debate
on this bill, I want to reinforce the decisions that the Coast Guard
has made and also reiterate I think all of our concern both from
Michigan, from Indiana and Illinois about ensuring that the Coast Guard
and having confidence in the Coast Guard that the Coast Guard is
putting in place a structure of services and capabilities and resources
that is going to provide safety for the boating population and also for
the commerce along Lake Michigan.
In regards specifically to the location of a helicopter station in
Muskegon, Michigan, they have gone through an elaborate process of
identifying where the most effective operational location should be for
that capability and also a community that could provide those services
at the lowest possible cost. But I think we all as Congressmen that
border on Lake Michigan are committed to ensuring that every section of
that coastline and all the waters of Lake Michigan are adequately
protected by the Coast Guard and that we will work together to make
sure that there are ample resources to ensure that that moves forward
in the future.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just note as a
boater myself that a foghorn one evening brought my little boat in when
we could not see the beam of the lighthouse. This is an amendment that
is needed. As I met with my boaters and some Coast Guard personnel even
this last week in Michigan, I think that this is a very good effort to
try and maintain safety along the shores of Lake Michigan. I again just
want to thank my two friends for allowing this amendment to come in at
such late notice.
Mr. Chairman, a few years ago, I was out sailing on Lake Michigan
with a group of friends. But as the sum went down, a full and beautiful
day gave wave to a sailors worst nightmare. Fog rolled in, the
visibility fell, and we were lost.
After searching and searching, we finally gained our direction not
because of the charts on board or the buoys in the water but thanks to
the foghorn and its steady signal.
It has come to my attention that the Coast Guard is considering
whether to eliminate the use of foghorns at many locations on the Great
Lakes. I oppose this idea and as one who has seen first hand, know that
these foghorns play a crucial role in the safety of many boaters in my
district and across the region.
Many boaters have contacted my office to express concern that they
will no longer be able to rely on the foghorn signal the next time they
are caught on the lake in a dense cloud of fog. In order to allow
people to enjoy and appreciate the water safely, we must ensure the
continued operation of our navigation aids.
Foghorns are a small, but integral part of the safety net that the
Coast Guard administers.
I sincerely feel that dismantling the foghorns will unnecessarily
endanger the lives of my constituents who may find themselves in a
similar predicament.
While many boaters have advanced navigational devices such as GPS or
LORAN, the foghorn signal is still an essential device used by many. If
the foghorns are dismantled, I guarantee that it will only be a matter
of time before an accident occurs and lives are threatened.
Please support my amendment that will ensure that the foghorns in my
district and across the Great Lakes are in working order.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton] to require these foghorns to be
operated and maintained by the Coast Guard. However, I would like to
inquire as to how long. I ask these questions because today we do have
the GPS satellite navigation systems that virtually all commercial
vessels are depending upon. The cost of these systems are dropping
continually as more and more recreational vessel owners are buying
them.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment does not address how long these
should be in effect. I would guess that if this amendment is accepted,
as I think that it will be, it will be for the length of the bill,
which--is this a 1-year authorization?
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, this is a 2-year authorization. I will
say that I as well accept the gentleman's amendment. I think what we
will do, though, between now and the conference committee and beyond is
to look into the issue of navigation concerns. I know that GPS is an
up-and-coming technology that more and more people are purchasing and
using and is probably the best type of system that anybody could have.
However, I do think for the next few years, maybe even the next decade
or so, we need to consider ourselves those people who do not have that
technology who may have to rely upon the foghorn system. I am not sure
what the foghorn sounds like. I wonder if the gentleman from Michigan--
--
Mr. UPTON. The gentleman is not going to hear it this evening but if
he asks me tomorrow, I might whistle a note or two.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I do
support his amendment. I thank the chairman of the committee for his
comments.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I
thank him for his amendment as I do have two foghorns in that amendment
myself. I just mention for the Record that I have 3 of the 5 Great
Lakes, Lake Superior being one of them. Not all of the areas yet are in
position to use the GPS technology due to some charting that still has
to take place. So I would hope that this amendment would stay at least
for this authorization and further, if needed, until the GPS and the
wonderful things it brings to the boating community is available to all
parts of the Great Lakes.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton] has
expired.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would just note in terms of the cost, the
cost of this amendment is very small. For the most part these foghorns,
many were installed in the early 1970s, have required virtually no
maintenance at all. As far as I know, all of these ports, the
lighthouses themselves are not manned, they are automatically timed as
they should be, require very little maintenance, but in some cases, as
is the case with the port at St. Joseph, a storm literally knocked the
foghorn from the lighthouse itself. It went into the lake and efforts
up to this point have not occurred where they would replace it. Whether
it be in St. Joe or other ports that we list along Lake Michigan, I
think this is a good exercise, a safe one that the Coast Guard is
entrusted to do and at least in the near term, until the GPS technology
is really readily on all boats, and maybe even required by various
States and we have more boaters in Michigan than any other State in the
Union, that this seems to be a prudent way of spending a few Federal
dollars to make sure that safety is there for not only the boaters but
their families, too.
Mr. Chairman, I urge that the House adopt my amendment.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I urge the House to accept this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton].
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Stupak
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
[[Page H8902]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Stupak:
At the end of title IV, add the following new section (and
conform the table of contents in section 2 accordingly):
SEC. . CONVEYANCE OF EAGLE HARBOR LIGHT STATION.
(a) Authority To Convey.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator of General Services
shall convey, by an appropriate means of conveyance, all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the
Eagle Harbor Light Station, Michigan, to the Keweenaw County
Historical Society.
(2) Identification of property.--The Secretary of
Transportation may identify, describe, and determine the
property to be conveyed pursuant to this subsection.
(b) Terms of Conveyance.--
(1) In general.--The conveyance of property pursuant to
this section shall be made--
(A) without payment of consideration; and
(B) subject to the conditions required by paragraphs (3),
(4), and (5) and other terms and conditions the Secretary of
Transportation may consider appropriate.
(2) Reversionary interest.--In addition to any term or
condition established pursuant to paragraph (1), the
conveyance of property pursuant to this section shall be
subject to the condition that all right, title, and interest
in the property conveyed shall immediately revert to the
United States if the property, or any part of the property.--
(A) ceases to be maintained in a manner that ensures its
present or future use as a Coast Guard aid to navigation; or
(B) ceases to be maintained in a manner consistent with the
provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
(16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
(3) Maintenance of navigation functions.--The conveyance of
property pursuant to this section shall be made subject to
the conditions that the Secretary of Transportation considers
to be necessary to assure that--
(A) the lights, antennas, and associated equipment located
on the property conveyed, which are active aids to
navigation, shall continue to be operated and maintained by
the United States;
(B) the person to which the property is conveyed may not
interfere or allow interference in any manner with aids to
navigation without express written permission from the
Secretary of Transportation;
(C) there is reserved to the United States the right to
relocate, replace, or add any aid to navigation or make any
changes to the property conveyed as may be necessary for
navigational purposes;
(D) the United States shall have the right, at any time, to
enter the property without notice for the purpose of
maintaining aids to navigation; and
(E) the United States shall have an easement of access to
the property for the purpose of maintaining the aids to
navigations in use on the property.
(4) Obligation limitation.--The person to which the
property is conveyed is not required to maintain any active
aid to navigation equipment on property conveyed pursuant to
this section.
(5) Reversion based on use.--The conveyance of the property
described in subsection (a) is subject to the condition that
all right, title, and interest in the property conveyed shall
immediately revert to the United States if the property, or
any part of the property ceases to be used as a nonprofit
center for public benefit for the interpretation and
preservation of maritime history.
(6) Maintenance of property.--The person to which the
property is conveyed shall maintain the property in
accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and other applicable laws.
Mr. STUPAK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, let me at the beginning here thank the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] and the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Clement] for not only allowing me the opportunity to
offer my amendment but for the excellent bipartisan bill they have put
forward. We have heard a lot here tonight about some of the strengths
in this bill, such as keeping the operation of the Coast Guard cutter
Mackinaw that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Johnson] mentioned, the
authorization of continuation of shipbuilding of Coast Guard cutters
and buoy tenders at Marinette Marine Corporation in Marinette,
Wisconsin.
Mr. Chairman, if I may just briefly, yesterday I was actually at a
Coast Guard ceremony to honor the Coast Guard in somewhat of a unique
way in Charlevoix, Michigan. Yesterday we recognized the heroic action
of Coast Guard members, especially Officer Henning, the crew of the
buoy tender Acacia, the members of the Coast Guard Station Charlevoix,
the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Back on July 26 as we were enjoying the
Venetian Festival in Charlevoix, unfortunately fireworks exploded
prematurely and a number of 12-inch fireworks exploded, sending
shrapnel some 1200 feet into a crowd of 30,000 people. We had one
person unfortunately died. Many were seriously, very seriously injured,
limbs ripped right off their bodies. If it was not for the crew of the
Coast Guard Station Acacia and Coast Guard Station Charlevoix and the
Coast Guard Auxiliary which was on their waterfront and they had
rendered heroic assistance and first aid in saving lives and
maintaining control in a very emergency situation that many people did
not realize because the rest of the fireworks continued to go and they
tried to continue the evening with this tragic set of circumstances. So
just yesterday we were honoring the Coast Guard in sort of a unique
action and all the accolades given to the Coast Guard here tonight are
well deserved.
Mr. Chairman, more specifically to the amendment I have, it is a
simple amendment which would merely transfer Eagle Harbor Light Station
in Eagle Harbor, Michigan to the Keweenaw County Historical Society.
The society has held a lease on this property since 1982, operating it
as a museum that depicts the history of the lighthouse and maritime
transportation on the Great Lakes. In addition, the society has made
repairs to the light station and the surrounding buildings and
property. The society wishes to obtain this light station in order to
continue their current preservation efforts and to further develop
educational programs to teach all ages about the Keweenaw County
heritage with an emphasis on the importance of maritime transportation,
especially in the copper ore industry. This transfer is supported by
the Coast Guard, the county of Keweenaw and Eagle Harbor Township.
Once again I would like to thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Gilchrest] and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement] for their
work on this and other transfers I have worked on in the past. I urge
my colleagues to pass this transfer.
I would also especially like to thank the chairman for including in
his mark the transfer of land in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan which will
be used for the American Legion. The land will transfer from the Coast
Guard to the American Legion. But I would especially like to take the
opportunity to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of Mr. Leno
Pianosi of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. He is a friend of mine and the
chairman of the county board of commissioners. Without his efforts and
his continued dedication to this project and persistence, this transfer
could not have taken place. I thank both gentlemen for giving Mr.
Pianosi and this transfer in the chairman's mark the opportunity to be
in the bill.
{time} 1900
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I do want to say it is a well-done
amendment. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] has done his
homework, and we accept his amendment.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I also support the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak]. This amendment is very clear,
concise, and will decrease the Coast Guard's operations and maintenance
costs of this facility. Therefore, I support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me thank everyone
for their help and cooperation in these efforts and for a fine Coast
Guard bill we have here, and ask for support of my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill? If not, the
question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute,
as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
[[Page H8903]]
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Kingston) having assumed the chair, Mr. Dickey, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2204), to
authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for the Coast
Guard, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 265, he
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________