[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.

                          ____________________