[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 150 (Tuesday, October 20, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12739-S12740]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  THE COAST GUARD REAUTHORIZATION ACT

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Coast 
Guard Reauthorization Act. The House recently passed an amended version 
of the Senate Coast Guard bill. While I support the overall 
reauthorization of the Coast Guard, I want to comment on several 
provisions contained in the House passed bill.
  There is currently an administrative process in place to convey 
excess Federal government property. I believe that legislation which 
mandates the transfer or disposal of Federal property under terms which 
circumvent the established administrative procedures is inappropriate. 
Consequently, the Senate bill used discretionary language to address 
certain conveyances requested by individual Senators. However, the 
House bill includes mandatory legislative conveyances. In this case 
only, I am accepting the mandatory language because I am satisfied that 
the Coast Guard is willing and prepared to make each of these 
particular conveyances.
  Another important difference between the House and Senate passed 
bills relates to drug interdiction. I sponsored an amendment in the 
Senate bill which would have established criminal sanctions for the 
knowing failure to obey an order to land an airplane. As a former 
pilot, let me clearly state that this provision was not designed to put 
any pilot at risk of an arbitrary or random forced landing. Arbitrary 
or random forced landings are impermissible under the Senate provision. 
As with all aviation legislation in which I have been involved, safety 
is a top priority. Under current law, if a Federal law enforcement 
officer who is enforcing drug smuggling or money laundering laws 
witnesses a person loading tons of cocaine onto a plane in Mexico, sees 
the plane take off and enter the United States, he may issue an order 
to land, and if the pilot knowingly disobeys that order, there is 
currently no criminal penalty associated with such a failure to obey 
the order.
  The criminal sanctions contained in the Senate bill would only be 
applied to a person who knowingly disobeyed an order to land issued by 
a Federal law enforcement agent who is enforcing drug smuggling or 
money laundering laws. The bill would also require the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) to write regulations defining the means by and 
circumstances under which it would be appropriate to order an aircraft 
to land. One of the FAA's essential missions is aviation safety. 
Accordingly, the FAA would be required to ensure that any such order is 
clearly communicated in accordance with international standards. 
Moreover, the FAA would be further required to specify when an order to 
land may be issued based on observed conduct, prior information, or 
other circumstances. Therefore, orders to land would have to be 
justifiable, not arbitrary or random. Orders to land would only be 
issued in cases where the authorized federal law enforcement agent has 
observed conduct or possesses reliable information which provides 
sufficient evidence of a violation of Federal drug smuggling or money 
laundering laws. If enacted, I would take every step possible to ensure 
that this provision does not diminish safety in any way.

  Last year, 430 metric tons of cocaine entered the United States from 
Mexico. In 1995, drugs cost taxpayers an estimated $109 billion. The 
average convicted drug smuggler was sentenced to only 4.3 years in 
jail, and is expected to serve less than half of that sentence. It is 
incumbent on all of us to fight the war on drugs with every responsible 
and safe measure at our disposal. The provision in the Senate bill 
would help those men and women who fight the war on drugs at our 
borders by providing an additional penalty for those who knowingly 
disobey the law.
  A provision included in both the House and Senate bill relates to the 
International Safety Management Code (ISM Code). On July 1, 1998, the 
owners and operators of passenger vessels, tankers and bulk carriers 
were required to have in place safety management systems which meet the 
requirements of the ISM Code. On July 1, 2002, all other large cargo 
ships and self-propelled mobile offshore drilling units will have to 
comply. Companies and vessels not ISM Code-certified are not permitted 
to enter U.S. waters.
  Shipowners required to comply with the ISM Code have raised concerns 
that the ISM Code may be misused. The IBM code requires a system of 
internal audits and reporting systems which are intended to encourage 
compliance with applicable environmental and vessel safety standards. 
However, the documents produced as a result of the ISM Code would also 
provide indications of past non-conformities. Obviously, for this 
information to be useful in rectifying environmental and safety 
concerns, it must be candid and complete. However, this information, 
prepared by shipowners or operators, may be used in enforcement actions 
against a shipowner or operator, crews and shoreside personnel by 
governmental agencies and may be subject to discovery in civil 
litigation.
  The provision in both the Senate and House bills would require the 
Secretary to conduct a study to examine the operation of the ISM Code, 
taking into account the effectiveness of internal audits and reports. 
After completion of the study, the Secretary is required to develop a 
policy to achieve full compliance with and effective implementation of 
the ISM Code. Under the provision, the public shall be given the 
opportunity to participate in and comment on the study. In addition, it 
may be appropriate for the Secretary to form a working group of 
affected private parties to assist in the development of the study and 
the issuance of the required policy and any resulting legislative 
recommendations. Any private citizen who is a member of any such 
working group cannot receive any form of government funds, 
reimbursement or travel expenses for participation in, or while a 
member of, the working group.
                                  ____

  (On page S12590 of the Wednesday, October 14, 1998, edition of the 
Record,

[[Page S12740]]

Mr. Reid's statement was erroneously attributed to Mr. Daschle. The 
permanent Record will be corrected to reflect the following:)

                          ____________________