[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.
____________________