[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 144 (Monday, October 12, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12383-S12395]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1998 AND 1999

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now 
proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 466, S. 1259.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page S12384]]


       A bill (S. 1259) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     years 1998 and 1999, for the United States Coast Guard, and 
     for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported 
from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, with 
amendments; as follows:

  (The parts of the bill intended to be stricken are shown in boldface 
brackets and the parts of the bill intended to be inserted are shown in 
italic.)

                                S. 1259

       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 for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF SECTIONS.

       The table of sections for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of sections.
Title I--Appropriations; Authorized Levels
Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 102. Authorized levels of military strength and training.
Title II--Coast Guard Management
Sec. 201. Severance pay.
Sec. 202. Authority to implement and fund certain awards programs.
Sec. [202.] 203. Use of appropriated funds for commercial vehicles at 
              military funerals.
Sec. [203.] 204. Authority to reimburse Novato, California, Reuse 
              Commission.
Sec. [204.] 205. Eliminate supply fund reimbursement requirement.
[Sec. 205. Authority to implement and fund certain awards programs.]
Sec. 206. Disposal of certain material to Coast Guard Auxiliary.
Title III--Marine Safety and Environmental Protection.
Sec. 301. Alcohol testing.
Sec. 302. Penalty for violation of International Safety Convention.
Sec. 303. Protect marine casualty investigations from mandatory 
              release.
Sec. 304. Eliminate biennial research and development report.
Sec. 305. Extension of territorial sea for certain laws.
Sec. 306. Law enforcement authority for special agents of the Coast 
              Guard Investigative Service.
Title IV--Miscellaneous
Sec. 401. Vessel Identification System amendments.
Sec. 402. Conveyance of communication station Boston Marshfield 
              receiver site, Massachusetts.
Sec. 403. Conveyance of Nahant parcel, Essex County, Massachusetts.
Sec. 404. Conveyance of Eagle Harbor Light Station.
Sec. 405. Conveyance of Coast Guard station, Ocracoke, North Carolina.
Sec. 406. Conveyance of Coast Guard property to Jacksonville 
              University, Florida.
Sec. 407. Coast Guard City, USA.
Sec. 408. Vessel documentation clarification.
Sec. 409. Sanctions for failure to land or to bring to; sanctions for 
              obstruction of boarding and providing false information.

               TITLE I--APPROPRIATIONS; AUTHORIZED LEVELS

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Fiscal Year 1998.--Funds are authorized to be 
     appropriated for necessary expenses of the Coast Guard for 
     fiscal year 1998, as follows:
       (1) For the operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard, 
     $2,740,000,000, of which $25,000,000 shall be derived from 
     the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
       (2) For the acquisition, construction, rebuilding, and 
     improvement of aids to navigation, shore and offshore 
     facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment 
     related thereto, $379,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $20,000,000 shall be derived 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, $19,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $3,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil 
     Spill Liability Trust Fund.
       (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, $645,696,000.
       (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, $26,000,000 to 
     remain available until expended.
       (6) For environmental compliance and restoration at Coast 
     Guard facilities functions (other than parts and equipment 
     associated with operations and maintenance), $21,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.
       (b) Fiscal Year 1999.--Funds are authorized to be 
     appropriated for necessary expenses of the Coast Guard for 
     fiscal year 1999, as follows:
       (1) For the operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard, 
     $2,740,000,000, of which $25,000,000 shall be derived from 
     the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
       (2) For the acquisition, construction, rebuilding, and 
     improvement of aids to navigation, shore and offshore 
     facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment 
     related thereto, $379,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $20,000,000 shall be derived 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, $19,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $3,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil 
     Spill Liability Trust Fund.
       (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, $675,568,000.
       (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, $26,000,000 to 
     remain available until expended.
       (6) For environmental compliance and restoration at Coast 
     Guard facilities functions (other than parts and equipment 
     associated with operations and maintenance), $21,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

     SEC. 102. AUTHORIZED LEVELS OF MILITARY STRENGTH AND 
                   TRAINING.G2

       (a) 1998 End-of-Year Strength.--The Coast Guard is 
     authorized an end-of-year strength for active duty personnel 
     of 37,660 as of September 30, 1998.
       (b) 1998 Military Training Student Loads.--For fiscal year 
     1998, the Coast Guard is authorized average military training 
     student loads as follows:
       (1) For recruit and special training, 1,368 student years.
       (2) For flight training, 98 student years.
       (3) For professional training in military and civilian 
     institutions, 283 student years.
       (4) For officer acquisition, 797 student years.
       (c) 1999 End-of-Year Strength.--The Coast Guard is 
     authorized an end-of-year strength for active duty personnel 
     of such numbers as may be necessary as of September 30, 1999.
       (d) 1999 Military Training Student Loads.--For fiscal year 
     1999, the Coast Guard is authorized average military training 
     student loads as follows:
       (1) For recruit and special training, such student years as 
     may be necessary.
       (2) For flight training, such student years as may be 
     necessary.
       (3) For professional training in military and civilian 
     institutions, such student years as may be necessary.
       (4) For officer acquisition, such student years as may be 
     necessary.

                    TITLE II--COAST GUARD MANAGEMENT

     SEC. 201. SEVERANCE PAY.

       (a) [Warrant Officers.--]Warrant Officers.--Section 286a(d) 
     of title 14, United States Code, is amended by striking the 
     last sentence.
       (b) Separated Officers.--Section 286a of title 14, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking the period at the end of 
     subsection (b) and inserting ``, unless the officer is 
     separated with an other than [Honorable Discharge] honorable 
     discharge and the Secretary of the Service in which the Coast 
     Guard is operating determines that the conditions under which 
     the officer is discharged or separated do not warrant payment 
     of severance pay.''.
       (c) Exception.--Section 327 of title 14, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking the period at the end of 
     paragraph (b)(3) and inserting ``, unless the Secretary 
     determines that the conditions under which the officer is 
     discharged or separated do not warrant payment of severance 
     pay.''.

     SEC. 202. AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT AND FUND CERTAIN AWARDS 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Section 93 of title 14, United States Code, is amended 
     --
       (1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     paragraph (u);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (v) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(w) provide for the honorary recognition of individuals 
     and organizations that significantly contribute to Coast 
     Guard programs, missions, or operations, including but not 
     limited to state and local governments and commercial and 
     nonprofit organizations, and pay for, using any 
     appropriations or funds available to the Coast Guard, 
     plaques, medals, trophies, badges, and similar items to 
     acknowledge such contribution

[[Page S12385]]

     (including reasonable expenses of ceremony and 
     presentation).''.

     SEC. [202.] 203. USE OF APPROPRIATED FUNDS FOR COMMERCIAL 
                   VEHICLES AT MILITARY FUNERALS.

       Section 93 of title 14, United States Code, as amended by 
     [Section 203] section 202 of this Act, is further amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     paragraph (v);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (w) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(x) rent or lease, under such terms and conditions as are 
     deemed advisable, commercial vehicles to transport the next 
     of kin of eligible retired Coast Guard military personnel to 
     attend funeral services of the service member at a national 
     cemetery.''.

     SEC. [203.] 204. AUTHORITY TO REIMBURSE NOVATO, CALIFORNIA, 
                   REUSE COMMISSION.

       The Commandant of the United States Coast Guard may use up 
     to $25,000 to provide economic adjustment assistance for the 
     City of Novato, California, for the cost of revising the 
     Hamilton Reuse Planning Authority's reuse plan as a result of 
     the Coast Guard's request for housing at Hamilton Air Force 
     Base. If the Department of Defense provides such economic 
     adjustment assistance to the City of Novato on behalf of the 
     Coast Guard, then the Coast Guard may use the amount 
     authorized for use in the preceding sentence to reimburse the 
     Department of Defense for the amount of economic adjustment 
     assistance provided to the City of Novato by the Department 
     of Defense.

     SEC. [204.] 205. ELIMINATE SUPPLY FUND REIMBURSEMENT 
                   REQUIREMENT.

       Subsection 650(a) of title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking [``The fund shall be credited with the 
     value of materials consumed, issued for use, sold, or 
     otherwise disposed of, such values to be determined on a 
     basis that will approximately cover the cost thereof.''] the 
     last sentence and inserting ``In these regulations, whenever 
     the fund is reduced to delete items stocked, the Secretary 
     may reduce the existing capital of the fund by the value of 
     the materials transferred to other Coast Guard accounts. 
     Except for the materials so transferred, the fund shall be 
     credited with the value of materials consumed, issued for 
     use, sold, or otherwise disposed of, such values to be 
     determined on a basis that will approximately cover the cost 
     thereof.''.

     [SEC. 205. AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT AND FUND CERTAIN AWARDS 
                   PROGRAMS.

       [(a) Section 93 of title 14, United States Code, is amended 
     --
       [(1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     paragraph (w);
       [(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (x) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       [(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       [``(y) provide for the honorary recognition of individuals 
     and organizations that significantly contribute to Coast 
     Guard programs, missions, or operations, including but not 
     limited to state and local governments and commercial and 
     nonprofit organizations, and pay for, using any 
     appropriations or funds available to the Coast Guard, 
     plaques, medals, trophies, badges, and similar items to 
     acknowledge such contribution (including reasonable expenses 
     of ceremony and presentation).''.]

     SEC. 206. DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN MATERIAL TO COAST GUARD 
                   AUXILIARY.

       (a) Section 641 of title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``to the Coast Guard Auxiliary, including 
     any incorporated unit thereof,'' in subsection (a) ; and
       (2) by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(f)(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the Commandant may 
     directly transfer ownership of personal property of the Coast 
     Guard to the Coast Guard Auxiliary (including any 
     incorporated unit thereof), with or without charge, if the 
     Commandant determines--
       ``(A) after consultation with the Administrator of General 
     Services, that the personal property is excess to the needs 
     of the Coast Guard but is suitable for use by the Auxiliary 
     in performing Coast Guard functions, powers, duties, roles, 
     missions, or operations as authorized by law pursuant to 
     section 822 of this title; and
       ``(B) that such excess property will be used solely by the 
     Auxiliary for such purposes.
       ``(2) Upon transfer of personal property under paragraph 
     (1), no appropriated funds shall be available for the 
     operation, maintenance, repair, alteration, or replacement of 
     such property, except as permitted by section 830 of this 
     title.''.

         TITLE III--MARINE SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

     SEC. 301. ALCOHOL TESTING.

       (a) Adminstrative Procedure.--Section 7702 of title 46, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(1)'' in subsection (c);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) of subsection (c) as 
     subsection (d)(1) and by redesignating subsection (d) as 
     subsection (e);
       (3) by striking ``may'' in the second sentence of 
     subsection (d)(1) as redesignated, and inserting ``shall''; 
     and
       (4) by adding at the end of subsection (d), as 
     redesignated, the following:
       ``(2) The Secretary shall establish procedures to ensure 
     that after a serious marine incident occurs, alcohol testing 
     of crew members responsible for the operation or other 
     safety-sensitive functions of the vessel or vessels involved 
     in such incident is conducted no later than two hours after 
     the incident is stabilized.''.
       (b) Increase in Civil Penalty.--Section 2115 of title 46, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``$1,000'' and 
     inserting ``$5,000''.
       (c) Increase in Negligence Penalty.--Section 2302(c)(1) of 
     title 46, United States Code, is amended by striking ``$1,000 
     for a first violation and not more than $5,000 for a 
     subsequent violation; or'' and inserting ``$5,000; or''.

     SEC. 302. PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL SAFETY 
                   CONVENTION.

       [(a) In General.--]Section 2302 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the following new subsection:
       ``(e)(1) A vessel may not be used to transport cargoes 
     sponsored by the United States Government if 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.
       [``(2) The prohibition in paragraph (1) expires for a 
     vessel 1 year after the date of the detention on which the 
     prohibition is based or upon the Secretary granting an appeal 
     of the detention on which the prohibition is based.
       [``(3) The head of a Federal Agency may grant an exemption 
     from the prohibition in paragraph (1) on a case by case basis 
     if the owner of the vessel to be used for transport of the 
     cargo sponsored by the United States Government can provide 
     compelling evidence that the vessel is currently in 
     compliance with applicable international safety conventions 
     to which the United States is a party.
       [``(4) As used in this subsection, the term `cargo 
     sponsored by the United States Government' means cargo for 
     which a Federal agency contracts directly for shipping by 
     water or for which (or the freight of which) a Federal agency 
     provides financing, including financing by grant, loan, or 
     loan guarantee, resulting in shipment of the cargo by 
     water.''.]
       ``(2) The prohibition in paragraph (1) expires for a vessel 
     1 year after the date of the detention on which the 
     prohibition is based or upon the Secretary granting an appeal 
     of the detention on which the prohibition is based.
       ``(3) The head of a Federal Agency may grant an exemption 
     from the prohibition in paragraph (1) on a case by case basis 
     if the owner of the vessel to be used for transport of the 
     cargo sponsored by the United States Government can provide 
     compelling evidence that the vessel is currently in 
     compliance with applicable international safety conventions 
     to which the United States is a party.
       ``(4) As used in this subsection, the term `cargo sponsored 
     by the United States Government' means cargo for which a 
     Federal agency contracts directly for shipping by water or 
     for which (or the freight of which) a Federal agency provides 
     financing, including financing by grant, loan, or loan 
     guarantee, resulting in shipment of the cargo by water.''.

     SEC. 303. PROTECT MARINE CASUALTY INVESTIGATIONS FROM 
                   MANDATORY RELEASE.

       Section 6305(b) of title 46, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking all after ``public'' and inserting a period and 
     ``This subsection does not require the release of information 
     described by section 552(b) of title 5 or protected from 
     disclosure by another law of the United States.''.

     SEC. 304. ELIMINATE BIENNIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT REPORT.

       [(a)] Section 7001 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 
     U.S.C. [2701 et seq.] 2761) is amended by striking subsection 
     (e) and by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (e).

     SEC. 305. EXTENSION OF TERRITORIAL SEA FOR CERTAIN LAWS.

       (a) Ports and Waterways Safety Act.--Section 102 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) Subtitle II of Title 46.--
       (1) Section 2101 of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (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) Section 2301 of that title is amended 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) Section 4102(e) of that title is amended by striking 
     ``on the high seas'' and inserting ``beyond 3 nautical miles 
     from the baselines from which the territorial sea of the 
     United States is measured''.
       (4) Section 4301(a) of that title is amended 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) Section 4502(a)(7) of that title is amended by striking 
     ``on vessels that operate on the high seas'' and inserting 
     ``beyond 3 nautical miles from the baselines from which the 
     territorial sea of the United States is measured''.

[[Page S12386]]

       (6) Section 4506(b) of that title is amended 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 baselines from which 
     the territorial sea of the United States is measured.''.
       (7) Section 8502(a)(3) of that title is amended by striking 
     ``not on the high seas'' and inserting: ``not beyond 3 
     nautical miles from the baselines from which the territorial 
     sea of the United States is measured''.
       (8) Section 8503(a)(2) of that title is amended 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 baselines from which 
     the territorial sea of the United States is measured.''.

     SEC. 306. LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY FOR SPECIAL AGENTS OF THE 
                   COAST GUARD INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE.

       (a) Authority.--Section 95 of title 14, United States Code, 
     is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 95. Special agents of the Coast Guard Investigative 
       Service law enforcement authority

       ``(a)(1) A special agent of the Coast Guard Investigative 
     Service designated under subsection (b) has the following 
     authority:
       ``(A) To carry firearms.
       ``(B) To execute and serve any warrant or other process 
     issued under the authority of the United States.
       ``(C) To make arrests without warrant for--
       ``(i) any offense against the United States committed in 
     the agent's presence; or
       ``(ii) any felony cognizable under the laws of the United 
     States if the agent has probable cause to believe that the 
     person to be arrested has committed or is committing the 
     felony.
       ``(2) The authorities provided in paragraph (1) shall be 
     exercised only in the enforcement of statutes for which the 
     Coast Guard has law enforcement authority, or in exigent 
     circumstances.
       ``(b) The Commandant may designate to have the authority 
     provided under subsection (a) any special agent of the Coast 
     Guard Investigative Service whose duties include conducting, 
     supervising, or coordinating investigation of criminal 
     activity in programs and operations of the United States 
     Coast Guard.
       ``(c) The authority provided under subsection (a) shall be 
     exercised in accordance with guidelines prescribed by the 
     Commandant and approved by the Attorney General and any other 
     applicable guidelines prescribed by the Secretary of 
     transportation or the Attorney General.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 5 of title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking the item related to section 95 and 
     inserting the following:

``95. Special agents of the Coast Guard Investigative Service; law 
              enforcement authority.''.

                        TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 401. VESSEL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM AMENDMENTS.

       Title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or is not titled in a State'' in section 
     [121O2(a);] 12102(a);
       (2) by adding at the end of section 12301 the following:
       ``(c) A documented vessel shall not be titled by a State or 
     required to display numbers under this chapter, and any 
     certificate of title issued by a State for a documented 
     vessel [than] shall be surrendered in accordance with 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
       ``(d) The Secretary may approve the surrender under 
     subsection (a) of a certificate of title covered by a 
     preferred mortgage under section 31322(d) of this title only 
     if the mortgagee consents.'';
       (3) by striking section 31322(b) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Any indebtedness secured by a preferred mortgage that 
     is filed or recorded under this chapter, or that is subject 
     to a mortgage, security agreement, or instruments 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.'';
       (4) by striking ``mortgage or instrument'' each place it 
     appears in section 31322(d)(1) and inserting ``mortgage, 
     security agreement, or instrument'';
       (5) by striking section [31322(d)(1)(3)] 31322(d)(3) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(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, security agreement, 
     or instrument granting a security interest became a preferred 
     mortgage under this [subsection'';] subsection.'';
       (6) by striking ``mortgages or instruments'' in subsection 
     31322(d)(2) and inserting ``mortgages, security agreements, 
     or instruments'';
       (7) by inserting ``a vessel titled in a State,'' in section 
     31325(b)(1) after ``a vessel to be documented under chapter 
     121 of this title,'';
       (8) by inserting ``a vessel titled in a State,'' in section 
     [31325(b)(8)] 31325(b)(3) after ``a vessel for which an 
     application for documentation is filed under chapter 121 of 
     this title,''; and
       (9) by inserting ``a vessel titled in a State,'' in section 
     31325(c) after ``a vessel to be documented under chapter 121 
     of this title,''.

     SEC. 402. 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;] 
     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.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     takes effect January 1, 1998.

     SEC. 403. CONVEYANCE OF NAHANT PARCEL, ESSEX COUNTY, 
                   MASSACHUSETTS.

       (a) In General.--The Commandant, United States Coast Guard, 
     may convey, by an appropriate means of conveyance, all right, 
     title, and interest of the United States in and to the United 
     States Coast Guard Recreation Facility Nahant, Massachusetts, 
     to the Town of Nahant.
       (b) Identification of Property.--The Commandant may 
     identify, describe, and determine the property to be conveyed 
     under this section.
       (c) Terms of Conveyance.--The conveyance of property under 
     this section shall be made--
       (1) without payment of consideration; and
       (2) subject to such terms and conditions as the Commandant 
     may consider appropriate.

     SEC. 404. CONVEYANCE OF EAGLE HARBOR LIGHT STATION.

       (a) Authority to Convey.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator of the General Services 
     Administration 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 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 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 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;
       (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;

[[Page S12387]]

       (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 
     navigation 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.

     SEC. 405. CONVEYANCE OF COAST GUARD STATION OCRACOKE, NORTH 
                   CAROLINA.

       (a) Authority to Convey.--
       (1) In general.--The Commandant, United States Coast Guard, 
     or his designee (the ``Commandant'') may convey, by an 
     appropriate means of conveyance, all right, title, and 
     interest of the United States of America (the ``United 
     States'') in and, to the Coast Guard station Ocracoke, North 
     Carolina, to the ferry division of the North Carolina 
     Department of Transportation.
       (2) Identification of property.--The Commandant may 
     identify, describe, and determine the property to be conveyed 
     under this section.
       (b) Terms and Conditions.--The conveyance of any property 
     under this section shall be made--
       (1) without payment of consideration; and
       (2) subject to the following terms and conditions:
       (A) Easements.--The Commandant may reserve utility, access, 
     and any other appropriate easements upon the property to be 
     conveyed for the purpose of--
       (i) use of the access road to the boat launching ramp;
       (ii) use of the boat launching ramp; and
       (iii) use of pier space for necessary search and rescue 
     assets (including water and electrical power).
       (B) Maintenance.--The ferry division of North Carolina 
     Department of Transportation, and its successors and assigns 
     shall, at its own cost and expense, maintain the property 
     conveyed under this section in a proper, substantial and 
     workmanlike manner necessary for the use of any easements 
     created under subparagraph (A).
       (C) Reversionary interest.--All right, title, and interest 
     in and to administered by the general services administration 
     if the property, or any part thereof, ceases to be used by 
     the Ferry Division of North Carolina Department of 
     Transportation.
       (D) Other.--Any other terms and conditions the Commandant 
     may consider appropriate to protect the interests of the 
     United States.

     SEC. 406. CONVEYANCE OF COAST GUARD PROPERTY TO JACKSONVILLE 
                   UNIVERSITY, FLORIDA.

       (a) Authority to Convey.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation may convey 
     to the University of 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, Florida.

     SEC. 407. COAST GUARD CITY, USA.

       The community of Grand Haven, Michigan, shall be recognized 
     as ``Coast Guard City, USA''.

     SEC. 408. VESSEL DOCUMENTATION CLARIFICATION.

       Section 12102(a)(4) of title 49, 46, United States Code, 
     and section 2(a) of the Shipping Act, 1916 (46 U.S.C. App. 
     802(a)) are each amended by--
       (1) striking ``president or other''; and
       (2) inserting a comma and ``by whatever title,'' after 
     ``chief executive officer''.

     SEC. 409. SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO LAND OR TO BRING TO; 
                   SANCTIONS FOR OBSTRUCTION OF BOARDING AND 
                   PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 109 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end new section 2237 to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 2237. Sanctions for failure to land or to bring to; 
       sanctions for obstruction of boarding and providing false 
       information

       ``(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for the pilot, operator, or 
     person in charge of an aircraft which has crossed the border 
     of the United States, or an aircraft subject to the 
     jurisdiction of the United States operating outside the 
     United States, to knowingly fail to obey an order to land by 
     an authorized Federal law enforcement officer who is 
     enforcing the laws of the United States relating to 
     controlled substances, as that term is defined in section 
     102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6)), 
     or relating to money laundering (sections 1956-57 of this 
     title).
       ``(2) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, in consultation with the Commissioner of 
     Customs and the Attorney General, shall prescribe regulations 
     governing the means by, and circumstances under which, a 
     Federal law enforcement officer may communicate an order to 
     land to a pilot, operator, or person in charge of an 
     aircraft. Such regulations shall ensure that any such order 
     is clearly communicated in accordance with applicable 
     international standards. Further, such regulations shall 
     establish guidelines based on observed conduct, prior 
     information, or other circumstances for determining when an 
     officer may use the authority granted under paragraph (1).
       ``(b)(1) It shall be unlawful for the master, operator, or 
     person in charge of a vessel of the United States or a vessel 
     subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, to 
     knowingly fail to obey an order to bring to that vessel on 
     being ordered to do so by an authorized Federal law 
     enforcement officer.
       ``(2) It shall be unlawful for any person on board a vessel 
     of the United States or a vessel subject to the jurisdiction 
     of the United States to--
       ``(A) fail to comply with an order of an authorized Federal 
     law enforcement officer in connection with the boarding of 
     the vessel;
       ``(B) impede or obstruct a boarding or arrest or other law 
     enforcement action authorized by any Federal law; or
       ``(C) provide information to a Federal law enforcement 
     officer during a boarding of a vessel regarding the vessel's 
     destination, origin, ownership, registration, nationality, 
     cargo, or crew, which that person knows is false.
       ``(c) This section does not limit in any way the 
     preexisting authority of a customs officer under section 581 
     of the Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law 
     enforced or administered by the Customs Service, or the 
     preexisting authority of any Federal law enforcement officer 
     under any law of the United States to order an aircraft to 
     land or a vessel to bring to.
       ``(d) A foreign nation may consent or waive objection to 
     the enforcement of United States law by the United States 
     under this section by radio, telephone, or similar oral or 
     electronic means. Consent or waiver may be proven by 
     certification of the Secretary of State or the Secretary's 
     designee.
       ``(e) For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) A `vessel of the United States' and a `vessel subject 
     to the jurisdiction of the United States' have the meaning 
     set forth for these terms in the Maritime Drug Law 
     Enforcement Act (46 App. U.S.C. 1903);
       ``(2) an aircraft `subject to the jurisdiction of the 
     United States' includes--
       ``(A) an aircraft located over the United States or the 
     customs waters of the United States;
       ``(B) an aircraft located in the airspace of a foreign 
     nation, where that nation consents to the enforcement of 
     United States law by the United States; and
       ``(C) over the high seas, an aircraft without nationality, 
     an aircraft of United States registry, or an aircraft 
     registered in a foreign nation that has consented or waived 
     objection to the enforcement of United States law by the 
     United States;
       ``(3) an aircraft `without nationality' includes--
       ``(A) an aircraft aboard which the pilot, operator, or 
     person in charge makes a claim of registry, which claim is 
     denied by the nation whose registry is claimed; and
       ``(B) an aircraft aboard which the pilot, operator, or 
     person in charge fails, upon request of an officer of the 
     United States empowered to enforce applicable provisions of 
     United States law, to make a claim of registry for that 
     aircraft;
       ``(4) the term `bring to' means to cause a vessel to slow 
     or come to a stop to facilitate a law enforcement boarding by 
     adjusting the course and speed of the vessel to account for 
     the weather conditions and sea state; and
       ``(5) the term `Federal law enforcement officer' has the 
     meaning set forth in section 115 of this title.
       ``(f) Any person who intentionally violates the provisions 
     of this section shall be subject to--
       ``(1) imprisonment for not more than 3 years; and
       ``(2) a fine as provided in this title.
       ``(g) An aircraft that is used in violation of this section 
     may be seized and forfeited. A vessel that is used in 
     violation of subsection (b)(1) or subsection (b)(2)(A) may be 
     seized and forfeited. The laws relating to the seizure, 
     summary and judicial forfeiture, and condemnation of property 
     for violation of the customs laws, the disposition of such 
     property or the proceeds from the sale thereof, the remission 
     or mitigation of such forfeitures, and the compromise of 
     claims, shall apply to seizures and forfeitures undertaken, 
     or alleged to have been undertaken, under any of the 
     provisions of this section; except that such duties as are 
     imposed upon the customs officer or any other person with 
     respect to the seizure and forfeiture of property under the 
     customs laws shall be performed with respect to seizures and 
     forfeitures of property under this section by such officers, 
     agents, or other persons as may be authorized or designated 
     for that purpose. A vessel or aircraft that is used in 
     violation of this section is also liable in rem for any fine 
     or civil penalty imposed under this section.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     109 of title 18, United States

[[Page S12388]]

     Code, is amended by inserting the following new item after 
     the item for section 2236:

``2237. Sanctions for failure to land or to bring to; sanctions for 
              obstruction of boarding or providing false 
              information.''.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent the committee amendments be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Committee amendments were withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 3813

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Senator Snowe has a substitute amendment at the desk. I 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], for Ms. Snowe, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3813.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering S. 1259, 
the Coast Guard Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1998, 1999, and 
2000. Members of the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries have been 
working on this legislation for much of the past year. My substitute 
amendment incorporates changes made to the bill since the Commerce 
Committee reported it, and which enjoys strong bipartisan support. 
These changes are based on comments that we received from a number of 
senators.
  The Coast Guard is one of our nation's most important agencies. It 
aids people in distress, prevents injury and the loss of life, defends 
our oceans borders from the scourge of illegal drugs and other national 
security threats, maintains the safety of our waterways, and performs 
many other essential missions with a high degree of professionalism. My 
State of Maine has a 3,500 mile coastline, and the Coast Guard plays an 
indispensable role in the safety and economy of the many people who 
live along the coast. The same is true for every other coastal state in 
the nation.
  In 1996, we enacted the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996, which 
authorized the Coast Guard through fiscal year 1997. The substitute 
amendment before us today reauthorizes appropriations and personnel 
levels for the Coast Guard through fiscal year 2000. In each of fiscal 
years 1999 and 2000, it authorizes $100 million over the 
administration's fiscal year 1999 for drug interdiction activities. 
These increases will restore Coast Guard drug interdiction to the 
fiscal year 1997 level. The amendment also includes various provisions 
that, among other things, are designed to provide greater flexibility 
to the Coast Guard on personnel administration, streamline the 
inventory management process, eliminate an unnecessary reporting 
requirement, enhance the safety of marine transportation, and 
strengthen Coast Guard law enforcement activities.
  Several provisions of the amendment that are particularly important 
to people in Maine and other states deserve special mention. Section 
301 requires the Coast Guard to ensure that alcohol testing of vessel 
crew members is conducted within 2 hours of marine accidents, unless 
safety considerations prevent it. This section also increases the 
maximum civil penalties for failure to adhere to alcohol/drug testing 
procedures and for operating a vessel while intoxicated.
  Section 310 requires the Coast Guard to issue a report identifying 
U.S. waters out to 50 miles that cannot currently be reached within 2 
hours by a Coast Guard search and rescue helicopter. The report must 
identify options to ensure that these areas can be covered by a 
helicopter within 2 hours.
  Section 313 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to establish, 
in consultation with the International Maritime Organization, two 
mandatory ship reporting systems in Cape Cod Bay and the Great South 
Channel (east of Cape Cod). Ships entering these areas will have to 
report to the Coast Guard so that the Coast Guard may track their 
movements and provide them with information on whale sightings. The 
provision is intended to protect against ship strikes of the highly 
endangered Northern right whale.
  Title V of the bill contains S. 1480, the Harmful Algal Bloom and 
Hypoxia Research and Control Act, a bill that I have sponsored with a 
number of senators on both sides of the aisle. The Commerce Committee 
recently reported the bill with unanimous bipartisan support. It 
directs the administration to develop plans for dealing more 
effectively with harmful algal blooms like pfiesteria and hypoxia, or 
the dead zone, in the Gulf of Mexico. It also authorizes additional 
funding for NOAA's research and monitoring activities on harmful algal 
blooms and hypoxia.
  Mr. President, I wish to emphasize one very important point with 
respect to these plans in title V, particularly the plan on Northern 
Gulf of Mexico hypoxia. The language in its provision requires the plan 
to be developed in conjunction with the States. The intent of this 
language is to ensure that the States play a substantial and 
constructive role in each stage of the development of the plan, and 
that their concerns and recommendations will be address by the 
administration before a plan is completed. Finding creative and 
sensible solutions to the Gulf of Mexico hypoxia problem will not be 
possible without the advice and cooperation of the affected States.
  This bipartisan bill reflects many months of painstaking effort and 
compromise. It will help to ensure that the Coast Guard will be able to 
perform its critical missions over the next 2 years. I urge my 
colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the bill before us 
today which would authorize the programs and activities of the U.S. 
Coast Guard for fiscal years 1998, 1999 and 2000.
  Mr. President, Massachusetts with its hundreds of miles of coastline, 
unforgiving storms, active maritime and fishing industries, and 
thriving recreational boating population, needs the Coast Guard at full 
strength. So does the rest of the nation.
  That is why I am pleased to support the bill before us today. I would 
like to describe some of the ways in which this bill addresses the 
challenges facing the Coast Guard. Our nation's maritime navigational 
infrastructure is of critical importance to a healthy economy. Over 95 
percent of our nation's imports and exports are transported through our 
coastal waters by commercial shipping. This bill authorizes funds for 
the acquisition, construction, rebuilding, and improvement of aids to 
navigation, shore and offshore facilities, vessels, and aircraft. In 
addition, I am extremely pleased that the bill authorizes necessary 
funding which will extend the useful life of the LORAN-C System. While 
the Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) has revolutionized 
precise navigation by ships and aircraft, we must recognize that there 
are still millions who rely on LORAN-C.
  One of the most important functions of the Coast Guard is to promote 
marine safety and environmental protection. This bill calls on the 
Secretary to establish procedures to ensure that after a serious marine 
incident occurs, alcohol testing of crew members or other persons 
responsible for the operation or other safety-sensitive functions of 
the vessel or vessels involved in such an incident is conducted no 
later than 2 hours after the incident occurs.
  I am pleased to see included here a provision designed to protect 
right whales. I worked closely with the Coast Guard and others to 
ensure that this bill included language that calls on the Secretary to 
implement and enforce two mandatory ship reporting systems, consistent 
with international law. One of these areas is located offshore of the 
Cape Cod Bay and Great South Channel. Upon entry into one of these 
areas, ships will be made aware of right whale sightings in order to 
lower the possibility of collision with these marine mammals.
  I am very pleased that this bill includes three land conveyances 
which transfer properties from the Coast Guard to Massachusetts 
communities: conveyance of communication station Boston Marshfield 
receiver site; conveyance of Nahant Parcel, Essex County; and 
conveyance of the Coast Guard Loran Station Nantucket.
  Mr. President, I am especially supportive of this bill's inclusion of 
language which will relieve the hiring freeze on the Commissioned Corps 
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), first 
imposed following the 1995 National Performance Review. This provision, 
which I

[[Page S12389]]

am pleased to have sponsored, will guarantee consistent stewardship of 
the NOAA Corps and the very important role the Corps plays in NOAA and 
to our Nation. This legislation will restore stability and renew the 
good faith contract made with the men and women of the NOAA Corps by 
establishing a minimum and maximum authorized strength for our nation's 
seventh uniformed service.
  The NOAA Corps is an indispensable part of NOAA: a pool of 
professionals trained in engineering, earth sciences, oceanography, 
meteorology, fisheries science, and other related disciplines. Corps 
officers serve in assignments within the five major line offices of 
NOAA. They operate ships, fly aircraft into hurricanes, lead mobile 
field parties, manage research projects, conduct diving operations, and 
serve in staff positions throughout NOAA. They operate the ships that 
set buoys used to gather oceanographic and meteorological data on 
unusual weather phenomena such as El Nino. They fly research aircraft 
into hurricanes that record valuable atmospheric observations. They 
conduct hydrographic surveys along our nation's coast in order to make 
our waters safe for maritime commerce.
  This legislation will establish staffing levels for the NOAA Corps 
that will provide some assurance of long term viability. It is time 
that we reaffirm our commitment to studying the earth's oceans and 
atmosphere by insuring that the NOAA Corps is staffed at the 
appropriate level.
  Finally, Mr. President, let me again turn to the Coast Guard 
provisions in this bill. The Coast Guard is essential to the safety and 
well-being of citizens in every coastal state and in every state with 
navigable waters. Today, over 50 percent of the U.S. population lives 
within coastal areas and directly benefits from the services the Coast 
Guard provides. But, indirectly, the Coast Guard, in the performance of 
its mission, is there to protect every American and every visitor to 
our coastal waters. In fact, more than two-thirds of the total budget 
for the Coast Guard goes to operating expenses to protect public safety 
and the marine environment; to enforce fishery and other laws and 
treaties; maintain aids to navigation; prevent illegal drug trafficking 
and illegal immigration; and preserve defense readiness. S. 1259 will 
make management improvements and enhance law enforcement authority for 
the Coast Guard, enhancing its ability to accomplish these missions. I 
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to support S. 1259, the 
United States Coast Guard Authorization Act. As many of my 
distinguished colleagues know, I have a great deal of admiration for 
the Coast Guard, as well as for Coast Guard men and women that carry 
out critical missions for our country. Before going into greater detail 
on the importance of the Coast Guard, I wish to discuss an amendment 
that Senator Ford and I intended to offer to this bill, but have 
withdrawn in order to address certain concerns raised by my colleague 
from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee. Our amendment would have eliminated 
the unjustified use of strict criminal liability statutes that do not 
require a showing of criminal intent or even the slight negligence in 
oil spill incidents.
  Through comprehensive congressional action that led to the enactment 
and implementation of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, commonly referred 
to as ``OPA90,'' the United States has successfully reduced the number 
of oil spills in the maritime environment and has established a 
cooperative public/private partnership to respond effectively in the 
diminishing number of situations when an oil spill occurs. Nonetheless, 
over the course of the last eight years, the use of the unrelated 
strict criminal liability statutes that I referred to above has 
undermined the spill prevention and response objectives of OPA90, the 
very objectives that were established by the Congress to preserve the 
environment, safeguard the public welfare, and promote the safe 
transportation of oil. Reasonable, measured refinements in federal law 
are urgently required to preserve the objectives of OPA90 by preventing 
the unjustified use of strict criminal liability in oil spill 
incidents. Accordingly, I have been working with my distinguished 
colleague from Kentucky, Senator Ford, and other members of the Senate 
to include legislation in this bill to enact such refinements.
  As stated in the coast Guard's own environmental enforcement 
directive, a company, its officers, employees, and mariners, in the 
event of an oil spill ``could be convicted and sentenced to a criminal 
fine even where [they] took all reasonable precautions to avoid the 
discharge''. With increasing frequency, responsible operators in my 
home state of Louisiana and elsewhere in the United States who 
transport oil are unavoidably exposed to potentially immeasurable 
criminal fines and, in the worst case scenario, jail time. Not only is 
this situation unfairly targeting an industry that plays an extremely 
important role in our national economy, but it also works contrary to 
the public welfare.
  Mr. FORD. As my colleague from Louisiana well knows, most liquid 
cargo transportation companies on the coastal and inland waterway 
system of the United States have embraced safe operation and risk 
management as two of their most important and fundamental values. For 
example, members of the American Waterways Operators (AWO) from 
Kentucky, Louisiana, and other states have implemented stronger safety 
programs that have significantly reduced personal injuries to mariners. 
Tank barge fleets have been upgraded through construction of new state-
of-the-art double hulled tank barges while obsolete single skin barges 
are being retired far in advance of the OPA90 timetable. Additionally, 
AWO members have dedicated significant time and financial resources to 
provide continuous and comprehensive education and training for vessel 
captains, crews and shore side staff, not only in the operation of 
vessels but also in preparation for all contingencies that could occur 
in the transportation of oil products. As of today, more than 90 
percent of the tugboats, towboats and barges owned and operated by AWO 
member companies are in compliance with the AWO Responsible Carrier 
Program (RCP), a program developed by the towing industry, on its own 
initiative, to improve the overall safety, efficiency, and quality of 
its marine operations. The RCP, complemented by advanced training 
programs such as the ground breaking wheelhouse resource management and 
simulator training program for towboat operators, is greatly enhancing 
the professionalism of mariners engaged in the transportation of oil 
products.
  Mr. President, I know that the commitment to marine safety and 
environmental protection by responsible members of the oil 
transportation industry from Kentucky and elsewhere is real. They 
continue to work closely with the Coast Guard to upgrade regulatory 
standards in such key areas as towing vessel operator qualifications 
and navigation equipment on towing vessels. That commitment is 
demonstrated by industry-driven safety initiatives like the Responsible 
Carrier Program mentioned above and the Coast Guard-AWO Partnership, 
which brings the leadership of the industry together with government to 
solve marine safety and environmental protection problems.
  Mr. BREAUX. through the efforts of AWO and other organizations, the 
maritime transportation industry has achieved an outstanding compliance 
record with the numerous laws and regulations enforced by the Coast 
Guard. Let me be clear: responsible carriers, and frankly their 
customers, have a ``zero tolerance'' policy for oil spills. For 
example, I am aware of a major marine transportation company 
headquartered in Louisiana that has a record of having performed over 
5,300 liquid cargo transfer operations without spilling or 
contaminating any of the almost 2.8 billion gallons it transferred over 
a recent three year period. Additionally, the industry is taking spill 
response preparedness seriously. Industry representatives and operators 
routinely participate in Coast Guard oil spill crisis management 
courses, PREP Drills, and regional spill response drills. Yet despite 
all of the modernization, safety, and training efforts of the marine 
transportation industry, their mariners and shoreside employees cannot 
escape the threat of criminal liability in the event of an oil spill, 
even where it is shown that they ``took all reasonable precautions to 
avoid [a] discharge''.

[[Page S12390]]

  Mr. President, as you know, in response to the tragic Exxon Valdez 
spill, Congress enacted OPA90. OPA90 mandated new, comprehensive, and 
complex regulatory and enforcement requirements for the transportation 
of oil products and for oil spill response. Both the federal government 
and maritime industry have worked hard to accomplish the legislation's 
primary objective--to provide greater environmental safeguards in oil 
transportation by creating a comprehensive prevention, response, 
liability, and compensation regime to deal with vessel and facility oil 
pollution.
  Mr. FORD. As my colleague from Louisiana has most ably demonstrated, 
OPA90 is working in a truly meaningful sense. To prevent oil spill 
incidents from occurring in the first place, OPA90 provides an 
enormously powerful deterrent through both its criminal and civil 
liability provisions. Moreover, OPA90 mandates prompt reporting of 
spills, contingency planning, and both cooperation and coordination 
with federal, state, and local authorities in connection with managing 
the spill response. Failure to report and cooperate as required by 
OPA90 may impose automatic civil penalties, criminal liability and 
unlimited civil liability. As a result, the number of domestic oil 
spills has been dramatically reduced over the past eight years since 
OPA90 was enacted. Coast Guard statistics reflect that in 1990 there 
were a total of 35 major and medium oil spills, seven of which were 
major spills. In 1997, as a direct result of OPA90, there were no major 
oil spills and the number of medium spills had been reduced to eight. 
In those limited situations in which oil spills unfortunately occurred, 
intensive efforts commenced immediately with federal, state and local 
officials working in a joint, unified manner with the industry, as 
contemplated by OPA90, to clean up and report spills as quickly as 
possible and to mitigate to the greatest extent any impact on the 
environment. OPA90 has provided a comprehensive and cohesive 
``blueprint'' for proper planning, training, and resource 
identification to respond to an oil spill incident, and to ensure that 
such a response is properly and cooperatively managed.
  OPA90 also provides a complete statutory framework for proceeding 
against individuals for civil and/or criminal penalties arising out of 
oil spills in the marine environment. When Congress crafted this Act, 
it carefully balanced the imposition of stronger criminal and civil 
penalties with the need to promote enhanced cooperation among all of 
the parties involved in the spill prevention and response effort. In so 
doing, the Congress clearly enumerated the circumstances in which 
criminal penalties could be imposed for actions related to maritime oil 
spills. In particular, OPA90 properly imposes criminal liability for 
negligent violations and provides for punishment of up to one year 
imprisonment and/or fines between $2500 and $25,000 per day. The 
punishment for each knowing violation was increased by OPA90 to up to 
three years imprisonment and/or fines between $5000 and $50,000 per 
day. Furthermore, OPA90 added and/or substantially increased criminal 
penalties under other pre-existing laws which comprehensively govern 
the maritime transportation of oil and other petroleum products.
  Mr. BREAUX. My colleague from Kentucky and I do not advocate nor do 
we support any effort to change the tough criminal sanctions that were 
imposed in OPA90. The criminal sanctions under OPA90 properly follow 
the traditional notion of what constitutes a criminal act in this 
country, namely, that a crime occurs when a knowing, intentional act is 
committed or when a party's conduct is so egregious that ``negligence'' 
has occurred. These tough, comprehensive OPA90 provisions collectively 
operate as a major deterrent for oil spills and should not be changed.
  However, responsible, law-abiding members of the maritime industry in 
Louisiana and elsewhere are concerned by both the justice Department's 
willingness in the post-OPA90 environment to use strict criminal 
liability statues and the Coast Guard's increasing attention to 
criminal enforcement in oil spill incidents. As you know, strict 
liability imposes criminal sanctions without requiring a showing of 
criminal knowledge, intent or even negligence. These federal actions 
imposing strict liability have created an atmosphere of extreme 
uncertainty for the maritime transportation industry and Oil Spill 
Response Organizations (OSROs) about how to respond to and cooperate 
with the Coast Guard and other federal agencies in cleaning up an oil 
spill. Criminal culpability in this country, both historically and as 
reflected in the comprehensive OPA90 legislation itself, typically 
requires wrongful actions or omissions by individuals through some 
degree of criminal intent or through the failure to use the required 
standard of care. However, Federal prosecutors have been employing 
other antiquated, seemingly unrelated ``strict liability'' statutes 
that do not require a showing of ``knowledge'' or ``intent'' as a basis 
for criminal prosecution for oil spill incidents. Such strict criminal 
liability statutes as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Refuse Act, 
statutes that were enacted at the turn of the century to serve other 
purposes, have been used to harass and intimidate the maritime 
industry, and, in effect, have turned every oil spill into a potential 
crime scene without regard to the fault or intent of companies, 
corporate officers and employees, and mariners.

  The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) provides 
that ``it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, 
to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or 
kill, . . . any migratory bird . . .'', a violation of which is 
punishable by imprisonment and/or fines. Prior to the Exxon Valdez oil 
spill in 1989, the MBTA was primarily used to prosecute the illegal 
activities of hunters and capturers of migratory birds, as the Congress 
originally intended when it enacted the MBTA in 1918. In the Exxon 
Valdez case itself, and prior to the enactment of OPA90, the MBTA was 
first used to support a criminal prosecution against a vessel owner in 
relation to a maritime oil spill, and this ``hunting statute'' has been 
used ever since against the maritime industry. The ``Refuse Act'' (33 
U.S.C. 407, 411) was enacted 100 years ago at a time well before 
subsequent federal legislation essentially replaced it with 
comprehensive requirements and regulations specifically directed to the 
maritime transportation of oil and other petroleum products. Such 
strict liability statutes are unrelated to the regulation and 
enforcement of oil transportation activities, and in fact were not 
included within the comprehensive OPA90 legislation as statutes in 
which criminal liability could be found. With the prosecutorial use of 
strict liability statutes, owners and mariners engaged in the 
transportation of oil cannot avoid exposure to criminal liability, 
regardless of how diligently they adhere to prudent practice and safe 
environmental standards. Although conscientious safety and training 
programs, state-of-the-art equipment, proper operational procedures, 
preventative maintenance programs, and the employment of qualified and 
experienced personnel will collectively prevent most oil spills from 
occurring, unfortunately spills will still occur on occasion.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, to illustrate Senator Beaux's point, please 
permit me to present a scenario that highlights the dilemma faced by 
the maritime oil transportation industry in Kentucky. Imagine, if you 
will, that a company is operating a towing vessel in compliance with 
Coast Guard regulations on the Mississippi River on a calm, clear day 
with several fully laden tank barges in tow. Suddenly, in what was 
charted and previously identified to be a clear portion of the 
waterway, one of the tank barges strikes an unknown submerged object 
which shears through its hull and causes a significant oil spill in the 
river. Unfortunately, in addition to any other environmental damage 
that may occur, the oil spill kills one or more migratory birds. As you 
know, under OPA90 the operator must immediately undertake coordinated 
spill response actions with the Coast Guard and other federal, state, 
and local agencies to safeguard the vessel and its crew, clean up the 
oil spill, and otherwise mitigate any damage to the surrounding 
environment. The overriding objectives at this critical moment are to 
assure personnel and public safety and to clean up the oil spill as 
quickly as possible without constraint. However, in the current 
atmosphere the operator must take into

[[Page S12391]]

consideration the threat of strict criminal liability under the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Refuse Act, together with their 
attendant imprisonment and fines, despite the reasonable care and 
precautions taken in the operation and navigation of the two and in the 
spill response effort. Indeed, in the Coast Guard's recently issued 
environmental enforcement directive, the statement is made that ``[t]he 
decision to commit the necessary Coast Guard resources to obtain the 
evidence that will support a criminal prosecution must often be made in 
the very early stages of a pollution incident.'' Any prudent operator 
will quickly recognize the dilemma in complying with the mandate to act 
cooperatively with all appropriate public agencies in cleaning up the 
oil spill, while at the same time those very agencies may be conducting 
a criminal investigation of that operator. Vessel owners and their 
employees who have complied with federal laws and regulations and have 
exercised all reasonable care should not continue to face a substantial 
risk of imprisonment and criminal fines under such strict liability 
statutes. Criminal liability, when appropriately imposed under OPA90, 
should be employed only where a discharge is caused by conduct which is 
truly ``criminal'' in nature, i.e., where a discharge is caused by 
reckless, intentional or other conduct deemed criminal by OPA90.

  Mr. BREAUX. As the scenario presented by my colleague from Kentucky 
demonstrates, the unjustified use of strict liability statutes is 
plainly undermining the very objectives which OPA90 sought to achieve, 
namely to enhance the prevention of and response to oil spills in 
Louisiana and elsewhere in the United States. As we are well aware, 
tremendous time, effort, and resources have been expended by both the 
federal government and the maritime industry to eliminate oil spills to 
the maximum extent possible, an to plan for and undertake an immediate 
and effective response to mitigate any environmental damage from spills 
that do occur. Clearly unwarranted and improper prosecutorial use of 
strict liability statutes will have a ``chilling'' effect on these 
cooperative spill prevention and response efforts. Indeed, even if we 
were to believe that criminal prosecution only follows intentional 
criminal conduct, the mere fact that strict criminal liability statutes 
are available at the prosecutor's discretion will intimidate even the 
most innocent and careful operator. With strict liability criminal 
enforcement, responsible members of the maritime transportation 
industry and faced with an extreme dilemma in the event of an oil 
spill--provide less than full cooperation and response as criminal 
defense attorneys will certainly direct, or cooperate fully despite the 
risk of criminal prosecution that could result from any additional 
actions or statements made during the course of the spill response. 
Consequently, increased criminalization of oil spill incidents 
introduces uncertainty into the response effort by discouraging full 
and open communication and cooperation and leaves vessel owners and 
operators criminally vulnerable for response actions taken in an effort 
to ``do the right thing''.
  Mr. FORD. In the maritime industry's continuing effort to improve its 
risk management process, it seeks to identify and address all 
foreseeable risks associated with the operation of its business. 
Through fleet modernization, personnel training, and all other 
reasonable steps to address identified risks in its business, the 
industry still cannot manage or avoid the increased risks of strict 
criminal liability (again, a liability that has no regard to fault or 
intent). The only method available to companies and their officers to 
avoid the risk of criminal liability completely is to divest themselves 
from the maritime business of transporting oil and other petroleum 
products, in effect to get out of the business altogether. Furthermore, 
strict liability criminal laws provide a strong disincentive for 
trained, highly experienced mariners to continue the operation of tank 
vessels, and for talented and capable individuals from even entering 
into that maritime trade. A recent editorial highlighted the fact that 
tugboat captains ``are reporting feelings of intense relief and 
lightening of their spirits when they are ordered to push a cargo of 
grain or other dry cargo, as compared to the apprehension they feel 
when they are staring out of their wheelhouses at tank barges'', and 
``that the reason for this is very obvious in the way that they find 
themselves instantly facing criminal charges * * * in the event of a 
collision or grounding and oil or chemicals end up in the water''. 
These views were eloquently expressed as well by two tank vessel 
masters in a recent House hearing on strict criminal liability for oil 
pollution. Certainly, the federal government does not want to create a 
situation where the least experienced mariners are the only available 
crew to handle the most hazardous cargoes, or the least responsible 
operators are the only available carriers. Thus, the unavoidable risk 
of such criminal liability directly and adversely affects the safe 
transportation of oil products, an activity essential for the public, 
the economy, and the nation.
  Mr. BREAUX. Therefore, Mr. President, despite the commitment and 
effort to provide trained and experienced vessel operators and 
employees, to comply with all Coast Guard laws and regulations, to 
abide by the safety and other operational mandates of the AWO 
Responsible Carrier Program and other similar industry initiatives, and 
to provide for the safe transportation of oil as required by OPA90, 
maritime transportation companies in Louisiana, Kentucky, and elsewhere 
still cannot avoid criminal liability in the event of an oil spill. 
Responsible, law-abiding companies have unfortunately been forced to 
undertake the only prudent action that they could under the 
circumstances, namely the development of criminal liability action 
plans and retention of criminal counsel in an attempt to prepare for 
the unavoidable risks of such liability.
  These are only preliminary steps and do not begin to address the many 
implications of the increasing criminalization of oil spills. The 
industry is now asking what responsibility does it have to educate its 
mariners and shoreside staff about the potential personal exposure they 
may face and wonder how to do this without creating many undesirable 
consequences? How should the industry organize spill management teams 
and educate them on how to cooperate openly  and avoid unwitting 
exposure to criminal liability? Mr. President, my colleague from 
Kentucky and I have thought about these issues a great deal and simply 
do not know how to resolve these dilemmas under current, strict 
liability law.

  Mr. FORD. In the event of an oil spill, a responsible party not only 
must manage the cleanup of the oil and the civil liability resulting 
from the spill itself, but also must protect itself from the criminal 
liability that now exists due to the available and willing use of 
strict liability criminal laws by the Federal Government. Managing the 
pervasive threat of strict criminal liability, by its very nature, 
prevents a responsible party from cooperating fully and completely in 
response to an oil spill situation. The OPA90 ``blueprint'' is no 
longer clear. Is this serving the objectives of OPA90? Does this really 
serve the public welfare of our nation? Is this what congress had in 
mind when it mandated its spill response regime? Is this in the 
interest of the most immediate, most effective oil spill cleanup in the 
unfortunate event of a spill? We think not.
  Mr. BREAUX. To restore the delicate balance of interests reached in 
the enactment of OPA90 almost eight years ago, I strongly believe that 
the Congress should reaffirm the OPA90 framework for criminal 
prosecutions in oil spill incidents, and work to enact legislation that 
reasserts the role of OPA90 as the statute providing the exclusive 
criminal penalties for oil spills. My colleague from Kentucky and I 
have proposed such legislation that will ensure increased cooperation 
and responsiveness desired by all those interested in oil spill 
response issues, while not diluting the deterrent effect and stringent 
criminal penalties imposed by OPA90 itself. My colleague from Kentucky 
and I are hopeful that we can work with Senator Chafee and other 
Members of the Congress to ensure the passage of such reform measures 
to preserve the oil spill prevention and response objectives of OPA90.
  Mr. President, another issue of great importance which is addressed 
in this legislation is the double hull alternative design study. 
Section 417 directs

[[Page S12392]]

the Secretary of Transportation to coordinate with the Marine Board of 
the National Research Council to conduct necessary research and 
development for alternative tanker designs to the double hull. If this 
effort utilizes technical performance standards it will undoubtedly 
enhance development designs such as the central ballast tanker system. 
These, American designs, some of which have already passed rigorous 
scientific tests and meet or exceed international shipbuilding 
standards, have not in my mind received appropriate attention. In my 
opinion, this may be due to inaccurate interpretation of Congress' 
intent which the Coast guard believes restricts any consideration of 
alternative designs to the double hull.
  Let me be clear, I am not opposed to the double hull design. In fact, 
I believe there is a place for the double hull. However, to consider 
only the double hull, while ignoring new, innovative technology which 
has been developed since the passage of the Clean Water Act and OPA90 
exhibits bad judgment and simply put is bad policy. It is estimated 
that 8,000 tankers will have to be constructed or redesigned by 2015 to 
meet the requirements of the petroleum industry. This equates to a ship 
building program which the industry conservatively estimates to be 
worth $400 billion, all of which will be built by foreign shipyards if 
we do not pursue alternative designs. For those who do not believe that 
U.S. shipyards can't compete--just look at what's happening right now. 
Currently, there are two hundred double hull tankers under construction 
or contract around the world of which only two have been built in the 
United States, both of which lost money for the U.S. shipyard. In fact, 
I am told that the U.S. shipyard which built these two double hull 
ships has refused to construct anymore. Without incorporating 
innovative design and technology, our shipyards and U.S. workers will 
lose out to Japanese, Korean, Norwegian and other foreign yards and 
workers.
  Mr. President, this issue is about more than jobs. Being from 
Louisiana, I am intimately familiar with the importance of this issue 
from an environmental standpoint. I grew up on Louisiana's Gulf coast 
and know first hand how environmentally sensitive our wetlands and 
coastlines are and also appreciate how important their health is to the 
livelihood of the many people who live along the richest fishery in the 
world. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that all of us in 
Louisiana, and I suspect just about all those who live along the Gulf 
Coast, are extremely concerned with the safety and reliability of oil 
transport vessels in our waters. Innovative designs like the central 
ballast tanker system will add a greater degree of safety in our waters 
an will further protect our sensitive and vitally important coastal 
ecosystem.
  I am confident that the Secretary, in conjunction with the Marine 
Board, the Coast Guard and industry leaders will pull together to 
consider and eventually approve alternative designs to the double hull 
so our waters can be cleaner and safer and our shipyards and American 
workers will successfully participate in tanker construction in the 
years to come.

  Mr. President, as I initially indicated, I have a great deal of 
admiration for the U.S. Coast Guard. I therefore, stand here today in 
support of S. 1259 the United States Coast Guard Authorization Act.
  The Coast Guard is essential to the safety and well being of the 
citizens of my home state of Louisiana, as well as every other coastal 
State, every State with navigable waters and even several landlocked 
States.
  Using Louisiana as an example, with its hundreds of miles of 
coastline, active maritime and fishing industries, and thriving 
recreational boating population the Coast Guard must be at full 
strength. The payback to our nation is unparalleled. For instance, 
every year the Coast Guard:
  Saves about 5,000 lives;
  Conducts 65,700 search and rescue missions;
  Responds to 11,680 hazardous waste spills;
  Protects vital marine habitats from encroachment and pollution;
  Maintains 50,000 aids to ensure maritime safety; and
  Keeps $2.6 billion worth of drugs off U.S. streets.
  In the Greater New Orleans area alone, the Coast Guard:
  Conducted over 300 search and rescue missions;
  Responded to 2500 pollution incidents;
  Investigated nearly 700 marine casualties;
  Conducted over 2700 vessel inspections; and
  Seized hundreds of pounds of drugs (Marijuana and Cocaine).
  In the event my distinguished colleagues aren't already amazed let me 
continue. More than two-thirds of the total budget for the Coast Guard 
goes to operating expenses to protect public safety and the marine 
environment, to enforce fishery and other laws and treaties, maintain 
aids to navigation, prevent illegal drug trafficking and illegal 
immigrants, and preserve defense readiness. I believe it's our 
responsibility to ensure that the Coast Guard has adequate resources 
for its missions as it prepares for the next century. As I've outlined, 
the resources we provide to the Coast Guard have a direct impact on our 
communities. The Coast Guard's Search and Rescue Program alone provides 
a four-to-one return on their Operating Expenses Appropriation and only 
scratched the surface of what the Coast Guard does for America, 
everyday, around the clock. This pay-pack is unrivaled and can only be 
claimed by a few agencies, including the Coast Guard.
  Always serving as an example, over the past 4 years, the Coast Guard 
on its own initiative to reduce overhead eliminated close to 4,000 
positions and streamlined to save approximately $400 million per year. 
This has resulted in the smallest Coast Guard since 1967, yet their 
workload has grown substantially over the past 3 decades. Over the 
years, we the Congress has continued to expand the Coast Guard's 
mission. The ``can-do'' attitude they continually display should serve 
as an example to us all. However, we can no longer force this proud 
maritime service to do more with less.
  I now call my colleagues to action. The Coast Guard's fiscal year 
1999 budget request contains the minimum funding necessary to sustain 
Coast Guard operations. As a co-sponsor of the Western Hemisphere Drug 
Elimination Act, I strongly support increased counter-drug operations, 
but I believe earmarks to increase them at the expense of several other 
Coast Guard missions inside a net reduction in operating expenses is 
not possible.
  It goes without saying how important the Coast Guard is to our 
Nation. I urge my colleagues to assure all necessary funding be secured 
in the 1999 Transportation Appropriations Bill, expected on the floor 
any day now. Restoration of earmarks are paramount to avoid necessary 
loss of life and negatively impacting public safety. I urge my 
colleagues to ensure the Coast Guard is provided a fiscal year budget 
very close to the President's request.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my 
Commerce Committee colleagues in supporting legislation to authorize 
the U.S. Coast Guard. This agency enjoys widespread, bipartisan 
support--and for good reason. The Coast Guard has an important job and 
does it well. Last year alone, the Coast Guard conducted 12,449 
fisheries enforcement boardings; prevented 103 thousand pounds of 
cocaine and 102 pounds of marijuana from reaching the streets; gave 
safety instruction to 570 thousand recreational boaters; responded to 
13,654 reports of water pollution or hazardous spills; prevented 
property loss of $2.5 billion; and saved almost 5,000 lives.
  The legislation before us today recognizes the vital contribution 
that the Coast Guard makes to the war on drugs. It authorizes $100 
million over the President's request in fiscal year (FY) 1999 and FY 
2000 for drug interdiction. This will allow the Coast Guard to conduct 
more operations like the one carried out by the Coast Guard Cutter 
Dallas in November of 1997. The Dallas, which is homeported in my 
hometown of Charleston, was participating in a joint surveillance 
operation with the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, and the 
Colombian Navy. During the operation, the Dallas fired 25 warning shots 
in pursuit of a 40-foot boat spotted off the coast of Columbia and 
recovered 1 of the 2 tons of cocaine netted in the operation.

[[Page S12393]]

  This bill authorizes a Coast Guard budget of $3.8 billion for FY 
1998, $4.07 billion for FY 1999, and $4.35 billion for FY 2000 covering 
six appropriations accounts: (1) operating expenses; (2) acquisition, 
construction, and improvement of equipment and facilities; (3) research 
and development; (4) retired pay; (5) alteration and removal of 
bridges; and (6) environmental compliance and restoration. In addition, 
it authorizes $10 million in FY 1999 and $35 million in FY 2000 for 
capital expenses related to LORAN-C navigation infrastructure.
  S. 1259 also provides for end-of-year military strength and training 
loads and addresses a number of Coast Guard-related administrative and 
policy issues. Among such issues, the bill provides for: authority to 
waive severance pay for officers separated with an other than honorable 
discharge; removal of the cap on warrant officer severance pay; use of 
funds for awards programs and car rental for funerals; transfer of 
equipment to Coast Guard Auxiliary; arrest authority for Special Agents 
of the Coast Guard Investigative Service; and a prohibition on new 
navigational assistance user fees through FY 2000.
  In addition, the bill enhances the Coast Guard's safety and law 
enforcement missions. It includes provisions to: require alcohol 
testing within two hours of a serious marine incident; assess national 
marine transportation system needs; evaluate the use of emergency 
position indicating beacons (EPIRBs) by operators of recreational 
vessels; and establish criminal penalties for the failure of a person 
to land an aircraft or heave to a vessel when ordered by a Federal law 
enforcement officer. At this point, I would like to highlight a few key 
provisions of S. 1259.


                            Georgetown light

  S. 1259 would convey the only working lighthouse in South Carolina, 
the Georgetown Light on North Island in Winyah Bay, to the South 
Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). SCDNR owns the 
property surrounding Georgetown Light and uses it as a wildlife 
preserve. It has been brought to my attention that the Coast Guard 
would like to deactivate the light inside of the lighthouse and replace 
it with a light on an existing tower. SCDNR and members of the 
community would like to see the light inside of the lighthouse 
maintained. But the Coast Guard is concerned that the only cost-
effective way to maintain this light is through structural 
modifications to the old lighthouse that could mar its historic 
character. However, I am confident that the Coast Guard, SCDNR, 
historic preservation officials, and the local community will sit down 
and come to a mutually-agreeable solution for operating this aid to 
navigation.


                    Panama Canal Tonnage Calculation

  At my request, the bill includes a provision to require the Panama 
Canal Commission to report on the methodology used to calculate tolls 
charged to deck container vessels. The tolls currently charged to 
container ships with on-deck containers are inconsistent with the 1969 
International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships (ITC 69). I am 
concerned that the current tonnage calculation system might adversely 
impact the traffic of containerized cargo through the Panama Canal. I 
will continue to monitor the fee structure to ensure that it is fair 
and does not adversely impact East Coast ports such as Charleston.


                   Navigational Assistance user fees

  S. 1259 would prohibit the Secretary of Transportation from 
implementing any new navigational assistance user fee until September 
30, 2000. Such a fee might discriminate inequitably among users of 
Coast Guard aids to navigation. While I am not sure that the Coast 
Guard would have the authority to impose such a fee, I am glad that we 
could make the law clear on this point.


                 Use of EPIRBs for Recreational Vessels

  In the past year, we have heard several tragic stories of lives lost 
when recreational vessels sink off of our nation's coast. Some of these 
vessels were close to shore and within range of Coast Guard rescuers 
but could not be located. They might have been found and tragedy been 
averted had the vessels been equipped with EPIRBs--devices which 
broadcast a vessel's position. While non-profit organizations like 
BOAT/US have encouraged EPIRB use through education and rental 
programs, more can be done. That is why I have included a provision to 
require the Coast Guard to evaluate and provide recommendations to 
stimulate the use and availability of EPIRBs by recreational vessels.


                      Law Enforcement Enhancement

  In 1790, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton ordered the 
construction of Revenue Cutters to stop smuggling and enforce tariffs. 
Today, the Coast Guard continues that mission, facing an increasingly 
sophisticated threat from illegal drug smugglers. Providing new 
authority to deal with an old problem, S. 1259 contains Administration-
requested measures to enhance law enforcement. These measures establish 
sanctions (including seizure and forfeiture) for failure to land an 
aircraft at the order of a federal officer enforcing drug or money-
laundering laws, and for obstructing boarding of a vessel by a Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) revocation of aircraft or airman 
certificates for such a violation, establish Coast Guard and Customs 
Service air interdiction authority, and set civil penalties of $15,000 
for violations of that authority. In addition, this provision requires 
that FAA establish conditions, based on observed conduct or prior 
information, for ordering a plane to land. These provisions are not 
intended to restrict or affect in any way the Federal Government's 
current broad authority to conduct border searches. Rather, they should 
safeguard innocent owners from concerns over unwarranted interference 
with their operations. I am optimistic that the bill strikes an 
appropriate balance with the need to assure innocent citizens that they 
will not be forced to land.


                Vessel Identification System Amendments

  The bill would make corrections to the Coast Guard's vessel 
identification system to make a vessel titled in a state eligible for 
Federal documentation and to ensure that a preferred mortgage remains 
preferred if a state title is surrendered for another state title or 
for federal documentation.


 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Corps Officers

  Finally, S. 1259 would set a floor on Corps officers of 264 and a 
ceiling of 299 through FY 2003, designate a flag officer at the 
Director of the Corps, and lift the hiring freeze on NOAA Corps 
officers. The Corps has not been permitted to recruit new officers 
since October 1994, and this methodical, de facto elimination of 
positions has continued without the oversight or approval of the 
Congress. While we have been discussing the status of this service, the 
natural retirements and attrition of time have been slowly bleeding the 
strength out of the NOAA Corps. The Corps stands below 245 members, 
down 44 percent from its highest level of 439 in 1995. This provision 
is intended to settle the issue so that Corps officers and their 
families are no longer in limbo and NOAA can focus on completing its 
core missions.
  Mr. President, over the past two centuries, the U.S. Coast Guard has 
built an enduring reputation throughout the world for its maritime 
safety, environmental protection, humanitarian, and lifesaving efforts. 
We have all watched the valiant and often heroic work of Coast Guard 
seamen and officer as they rescue desperate refugees who have taken to 
the seas in crowded and makeshift boats. Even in the remote regions of 
the world, the Coast Guard is present, actively engaged in the 
enforcement of United Nations' embargoes against countries like the 
former Republic of Yugoslavia and Iraq. The men and women of the Coast 
Guard respond with equal dedication during times of war and peace. I 
ask my colleagues to recognize this service by joining me in supporting 
S. 1259.


                 jones act waiver/camden iron and metal

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President I thank Senator Snowe, Senator McCain, 
and Majority Leader Lott for working with us to craft a compromise 
regarding the coastwise eligibility of Barge APL-60. This limited 
certification will allow the barge to be used by Camden Iron and Metal 
in an important new Navy ship disposal initiative. Thanks to the 
diligent efforts of Senators Lautenberg and Specter, initial funding of 
$7.5 million for this ship disposal initiative has been included in the 
FY99 defense appropriations bill. I

[[Page S12394]]

would just like to clarify with the Senator from Maine that it is her 
understanding that this provision will apply to all work done by the 
barge in connection with the initiative for as many years as the 
initiative continues.
  Ms. SNOWE. Yes, that it is my understanding.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I, too thank Senator Snowe, Senator McCain, Majority 
Leader Lott, and Senators Hollings and Breaux for their assistance on 
this important economic development initiative. The program will 
involve the development of an environmentally sound method for 
dismantling the Navy's many decommissioned vessels. Camden Iron and 
Metal, a critical partner in this initiative, intends to transport 
pieces of the Navy's ships on the barge from the shipyard to its 
facility in Camden for further processing. It is a very important 
project in the city of Camden and I am grateful for their help. I 
recognize that discussions are under way with the House regarding the 
Coast Guard authorization and want to ask the chairman for a commitment 
to giving this provision priority consideration in those discussions.
  Ms. SNOWE. I will do every thing I can to ensure that this provision 
is in any final Coast Guard legislation.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Maine.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Again, I thank the Senator from Maine, Senator 
McCain, the Majority Leader, as well Senators Hollings and Breaux.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Coast Guard 
Reauthorization Act of 1998, 1999, and 2000. The Coast Guard is a 
branch of the armed forces and a multi-mission agency. The Coast Guard 
is responsible for our national defense, search and rescue services on 
our nation's waterways, maritime law enforcement, including drug 
interdiction and environmental protection, marine inspection, 
licensing, port safety and security, aids to navigation, waterways 
management, and boating safety. This bill will provide the Coast Guard 
with funding and authority to continue to provide the United States 
with high quality performance of its diverse duties through fiscal year 
2000. I commend the men and women of the Coast Guard who serve their 
country with honor and distinction.
  This bill authorizes $100 million over the Administration's budget 
request in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 for drug interdiction activities. 
This additional money will restore drug interdiction funding to 
approximately the same level which the Coast Guard spent on the war on 
drugs in 1997. As the primary maritime law enforcement agency, the 
Coast Guard has played an essential role in our nation's war on drugs. 
The Commandant of the Coast Guard serves as the Administration's drug 
interdiction coordinator. With the leadership provided by the Coast 
Guard, several successful drug interdiction operations performed with 
other federal agencies have proven to be quite effective. In Operation 
Frontier Shield, 36,262 pounds of cocaine were seized off the coast of 
Puerto Rico, and in three months during Operation Frontier Lance, 2,990 
pounds of cocaine were seized off the coast of Haiti. Despite these 
successful operations, the Administration has not provided for an 
actual increase in drug interdiction funding levels in its fiscal year 
1999 budget request. The funding included in this bill signifies the 
Commerce Committee's endorsement of the Coast Guard's continued role in 
the war on drugs.
  In addition to funding the important multi-missions of the Coast 
Guard, this bill makes a series of programmatic changes which will help 
the Coast Guard operate in a more efficient and effective manner. I 
will briefly highlight and explain several provisions contained in the 
bill. The bill gives the Coast Guard parity with the Department of 
Defense for severance pay. It gives the Coast Guard discretion in 
making decisions related to severance pay for officers being separated 
with a less than Honorable Discharge and removes the existing cap on 
warrant officer severance pay. In both instances, the Committee expects 
the Coast Guard to implement this provision in a fair and uniform 
manner.
  The bill also prohibits a foreign-flag vessel which has been detained 
for a violation of an international safety convention to which the 
United States is a party from carrying cargo sponsored by the United 
States Government for one year after the violation. The Committee 
intends this penalty to be triggered in the case of serious violations 
of such conventions.

  The bill authorizes the Coast Guard to establish seasonal helicopter 
search and rescue capability based in Westhampton, NY, from April 15 
through October 15. Due to the discretionary nature of this provision, 
the Committee fully expects the Coast Guard to continue to maintain its 
complete search and rescue mission based on need. By including this 
provision, the Committee does not intend to extend any inference of 
priority for the establishment of such search and rescue capability in 
a manner that contravenes meeting higher priorities.
  The bill authorizes the Coast Guard to administratively convey excess 
lighthouses. In granting such authority, the Committee is focused on 
the historic preservation of the lighthouses. However, the Committee 
expects the Coast Guard to take factors, such as the protection of the 
taxpayer, into consideration when making such an administrative 
conveyance. For example, if a conveyance is the source of a local 
controversy or would result in a waste of taxpayer dollars, the 
Committee would anticipate that the Coast Guard would exercise its 
discretion and not make the conveyance.
  The bill also provides an administrative process for obtaining a 
waiver of the coastwise trade laws to allow vessels to commercially 
operate in the coastwise trade under certain conditions. The waiver 
authority allows the Administration to process noncontroversial waiver 
requests in a more expeditious manner than the Congress and improve the 
responsiveness of the federal government in meeting the needs of many 
vessel-operating small businesses. I introduced this provision 
separately as S. 661 and it was adopted by the Committee.
  The bill includes S. 1480, the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia 
Research and Control Act of 1998. This bill was adopted by the 
Committee and provides funding for Federal research, monitoring, and 
management activities to address harmful algal blooms and hypoxia on a 
national scale.
  The bill includes a provision which authorized the Commandant of the 
Coast Guard to recognize the community of Grand Haven, Michigan as 
``Coast Guard City USA''. The community has a long and lofty tradition 
of making the Coast Guard at home in Grand Haven. Senator Abraham, 
Senator Levin, and Representative Hoekstra worked tirelessly to secure 
this recognition for Grand Haven. The bill contains discretionary 
language because the Committee was concerned about possibly precluding 
any other community in the United States from attaining such 
recognition under any circumstances.
  This bill represents a comprehensive set of improvements which should 
enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the day-to-day operation of 
the Coast Guard. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude and that 
of the full Commerce Committee to staff who worked on this bill, 
including Clark LeBlanc, Sloan Rappoport, Jim Sartucci, Penny Dalton, 
Jean Toal, Carl Bentzel, as well as Tim Cook, a Coast Guard fellow, who 
provided valuable insight into life in the Coast Guard and how certain 
provisions in the Coast Guard bill would benefit the men and women in 
uniform, and Stephanie Bailenson, a Sea Grant fellow, who helped 
develop the harmful algal bloom legislation and provided an essential 
scientific perspective on the bill.
  Mr. INHOFE. I would like to enter into a colloquy with my friend 
Senator McCain, who is the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, 
in order to clarify an amendment to the Coast Guard authorization bill. 
This provision, which was adopted in committee as part of S. 1259, has 
the unintended effect of raising serious safety concerns for general 
aviation pilots. It would make it a criminal offense if a pilot 
knowingly disobeys an order to land, but there is no explicit 
requirement for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. It also 
could make an aircraft owner responsible for paying thousands of 
dollars to reclaim their aircraft, even if they are totally innocent of 
any wrongdoing.

[[Page S12395]]

  As the Senator knows, I have been a pilot for over 40 years, and I 
understand that an ``order to land'' could be a dangerous and traumatic 
experience for a pilot. In fact, the International Standards, Rules of 
the Air, published by the International Civil Aviation Organization 
says ``interceptions of civil aircraft are, in all cases, potentially 
hazardous.''
  The provision was intended to provide additional authority to U.S. 
law enforcement officers to curtail maritime and aviation drug 
smuggling near the border, which I'm sure all of us agree is a laudable 
goal. However, because of the potential danger and immense burden to 
pilots, I believe some relatively minor changes should be made to the 
amendment.
  With that in mind, I have drafted some changes to the language that I 
would appreciate the House and Senate considering during their 
deliberations. These changes will directly address the concerns of the 
general aviation community without undermining the ability of law 
enforcement to track and stop pilots involved in illegal activity.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend, Senator Inhofe, for raising these 
issues. As he said, the goal of this amendment is to help U.S. law 
enforcement officers fight the war on drugs. The provision would make 
it unlawful for a pilot subject to U.S. jurisdiction to knowingly 
disobey an order to land issued by an authorized Federal law 
enforcement officer. The provision does try to address the issues you 
raise by requiring that the FAA write the regulations to define the 
means by and circumstances under which it would be appropriate to order 
an aircraft to land. The regulations would include guidelines for 
determining when an officer may issue an order to land based on 
observed conduct, prior information, or other circumstances.
  Clearly, safety must be a primary consideration in the formulation 
and administration of these guidelines. Let me also assure the Senator 
from Oklahoma that the intent of this provision is not to allow for 
seizure of aircraft owned by people whose planes have been stolen, 
borrowed or rented and used illegally without the owner's knowledge. If 
the general aviation community still has concerns, we will work with 
you to make sure the issues involving safety and fair treatment of 
innocent pilots are thoroughly considered. As we discuss the Coast 
Guard bill with the House, we will work with you and review the 
language in this provision. I want to assure my friend that I will 
discuss all of your concerns and recommendations, and recommendations 
from other Senators with our colleagues in the House.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator. I appreciate his willingness to work 
with me on this issue which is of great important to the general 
aviation community.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask consent the Snowe amendment be agreed to, and the 
bill be considered read a third time.
  The amendment (No. 3813) was agreed to.
  The bill (S. 1259), as amended, was considered read the third time.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask consent the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 221, 
H.R. 2204.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2204) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     years 1998 and 1999 for the Coast Guard, and for other 
     purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I further ask consent that all after the enacting 
clause be stricken and the text of S. 1259, as amended, be inserted in 
lieu thereof. I further ask consent that the bill then be read a third 
time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, 
and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record, and 
finally S. 1259 be placed back on the calendar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the bill (H.R. 2204), as amended, was considered read the third 
time and passed.

                          ____________________