Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 144 (Thursday, November 3, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 144 (Thursday, November 3, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H9568-H9569]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 889, COAST GUARD AND MARITIME
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2005

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 889) to authorize
appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2006, to make
technical corrections to various laws administered by the Coast Guard,
and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to
the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alaska?
There was no objection.

Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Oberstar

The OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. OBERSTAR moves that the managers on the part of the House at the
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill (H.R.
889) to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal year
2006, to make technical corrections to various laws administered by the
Coast Guard, and for other purposes, be instructed to insist on section
603 of the House bill.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7(b) of rule XXII, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Alaska
(Mr. Young) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, we will not take anywhere near the time
allotted. I will take a few moments to explain the motion which the
gentleman from Alaska, the chairman of our committee, and I have
discussed previously.
The subject of this motion is summed up by a committee hearing held
earlier this year on the tragedy that occurred November 26, 2004. The
Athos, 750-foot single-hull tank vessel, hit a submerged object in
Delaware Bay just

[[Page H9569]]

south of Philadelphia, spilling 265,000 gallons of heavy crude oil.
In January of this year, our Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation held a field hearing on this marine casualty in
Philadelphia. The Coast Guard estimated that the costs of cleanup and
natural resources damages resulting from the grounding of the Athos I
could be in the range of $200 million. Under current law, the owners of
the vessel would be liable for costs of only up to $45 million.
At that hearing, the Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
LoBiondo), and our newly elected Member, the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), raised the concern that the limits of the
vessel owner's liability for response, cleanup, and restoration to the
damages caused by this spill were relatively modest, set when the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 was enacted over 15 years ago. The Chairman and I
both remember, when we served on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries
Committee, we were part of setting that oil pollution liability limit.
We have not increased those limits since that time even though
inflation has actually overtaken.
With the leadership of the chairman of the subcommittee and the
gentlewoman from Philadelphia and to ensure that the limits do not
again become out of date, Section 603 directs the President to adjust
limits of liability. First, Section 603 adjusts the liability limits to
account for the inflation of the past 15 years, since the Oil Pollution
Act was enacted. Secondly, the provision requires that the President
adjust these liability limits not less than every 3 years to reflect
changes in the Consumer Price Index since the last adjustment.
I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation, the gentlewoman from Philadelphia (Ms. Schwartz), and
especially our chairman who has concurred, and we worked together in
crafting this language to ensure that the Coast Guard reauthorization
bill includes this provision and the other provisions of H.R. 1412, the
Delaware River Protection Act of 2005. I think it is an important step
forward for the environment, for the taxpayers, and for safety of the
future.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
gentleman's motion to instruct.
H.R. 889, which was passed unanimously by this House, includes a
provision that would increase liability limits by approximately 50
percent for double-hull tank vessels and would, for the first time,
establish higher liability limits for single-hull tank vessels.
This legislation was developed through the regular committee process
on a completely bipartisan basis.
Further, this bill is supported by the oil and shipping industries as
a commonsense measure that both increases the industries'
responsibilities and maintains the protections of the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund to deal with any other major oil spills in the
future.
Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct is one I agree with and,
therefore, I urge that we accept it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, there is no comparable provision that I am
aware of, and that is why I think it is important for the House to
insist on this language, a position that I know the Chairman will
stoutly defend, and we will have unanimous support on our side. We will
have a bipartisan position.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the gentleman
from Minnesota's motion to instruct.
As the gentleman knows, this provision was originally included in
H.R. 1412, the Delaware River Protection Act, which I introduced and
which passed with unanimous support in the House. I thank Chairman
Young, and Ranking Member Oberstar for including the provisions of that
bill as part of H.R. 889, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
Act of 2005.
I thank the co-sponsors of the original legislation for their
assistance in crafting this provision: Mr. Saxton, Mr. Castle, Mr.
Andrews and Ms. Schwartz, and I urge my colleagues to support the
motion to instruct and the underlying bill as we move to conference
with the Senate.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will appoint conferees at a later
time.

____________________