[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 57 (Thursday, April 10, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2947-S2950]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 2841. A bill to amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and title 46,
United States Code, to establish a marine emergency protocol and
requirements for double-hulling of vessel fuel tanks; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important
piece of legislation. The Marine Emergency Protocol and Hull
Requirement Act will take two major steps in preventing oilspills.
First, the bill directs the United States Coast Guard to control and
oversee a vessel's route and speed during dangerous conditions. This
oversight is critical to protect our ships during an attack or in
conditions of low visibility.
Second, the bill will keep dangerous oil and fuel out of our
waterways by mandating that all large cargo ships reinforce their fuel
tanks with double hulls. By doing so, many of the small mishaps that
occur will not lead to major oilspills.
San Franciscans learned the hard way that further precautions and
regulations are needed.
Last November, in my hometown, a large cargo ship carrying over
100,000 gallons of fuel, ran into the San Francisco Bay Bridge. The
damaged ship poured 53,000 gallons of oil into the bay.
In the following hours and days there was confusion, it was difficult
to obtain accurate information, and there was a general sense of
frustration felt by Bay Area residents.
[[Page S2948]]
Here is what we knew:
On the foggy November morning, visibility was very low--less than a
quarter of a mile--in the San Francisco Bay.
Under these low visibility conditions the Cosco Busan, a large 900-
foot-long cargo ship, decided to leave for its destination despite the
poor conditions.
As the ship proceeded towards the Bay Bridge, the captain was advised
by the Coast Guard that his vessel may be off course. However the Coast
Guard did nothing to stop the ship, which they knew was heading
directly towards a pillar of the bridge.
Despite the warnings and the poor visibility, the ship continued to
speed toward the bridge until it collided.
The fact is this: The Coast Guard's actions did not stop the ship
from running into the pier.
It is the responsibility of the Coast Guard to make sure that
preventable oilspills are prevented. Sector Commanders and Vessel
Traffic Service officers track ships as they traverse harbors across
the country. In this case they could see that the ship was off course,
yet they did nothing. This is unacceptable.
The Marine Emergency Protocol and Hull Requirement Act will mandate
that the Coast Guard act to stop a ship--such as the Cosco Busan--that
is dangerously off course.
Yes, there was substantial human error that led to this oilspill.
That is unquestionable. But the fact remains that the Coast Guard had
an opportunity to stop this ship, and it did not.
The bill directs the Sector Commander of the Coast Guard, that is the
top official within each of the Coast Guard's 35 regions, to assume
direct authority of all vessels during conditions of enhanced danger,
such as low visibility or an attack.
By doing this, we will create a central system where all decisions
are made. There will not be any confusion about who should do what, or
when, or how. This way, during emergency conditions when confusion
abounds, all orders are coming from one central source.
The Sector Commander will have the authority to stop ships, change
their course, or return them to a safe harbor. They will have the
authority to alter the course of one ship, or of all ships. This
authority is necessary to ensure safe navigation of dangerous
waterways.
Yet even in a perfect world, the Coast Guard cannot stop all
oilspills. Sometimes the circumstances are out of their control.
That is why we need to make sure that the ships in our waterways take
all reasonable precautions to protect against spilling oil.
The Marine Emergency Protocol and Hull Requirement Act also mandates
that all cargo vessels are built with, or install, double hull
containment structures around their petroleum based fuel tanks. Doing
so keeps small mishaps and collisions from turning into major
oilspills.
The extra layer of protection was required for oil tankers under the
Oil Pollution Act of 1990, OPA 90.
Following the 11-million gallon Exxon Valdez tragedy in 1989, new
restrictions on oil tankers were at the center of the debate on how to
prevent another catastrophic oilspill. The result of the OPA 90
legislation has been remarkable.
Compared to the 15 years before the enactment of the Oil Pollution
Act, the following 15 years have seen a 90-percent drop in oilspills
over 100,000 gallons.
In the same time period, there has been a 79-percent drop in spills
less than 100,000 gallons.
By 2015 there will be no single-hull tank vessels operating in U.S.
waters. As of 2010, only 5 percent of domestic and only 4 percent of
foreign tank vessels will still have a single hull. Nearly 90 percent
had single hulls in 1990.
These are incredible successes. Unfortunately one other statistic
sticks out.
Since 1990, 90 percent of all oilspills have been from non-tank
vessels.
Clearly, this illustrates the need for cargo ships, the main culprit
of oilspills in recent years, to be subject to the Oil Pollution Act
standards.
In 1990, cargo ships were left out because relatively, they carried
much less oil. However, newer, larger cargo ships carry hundreds of
thousands of gallons of oil as fuel, and this oil still poses a grave
environmental threat.
In the Cosco Busan incident, and dozens of other catastrophic
oilspills around the world, it was fuel oil that ended up in the water,
not cargo oil. Of course this oil is just as deadly, yet under current
law it is treated differently.
It is time to close this loophole.
The Marine Emergency Protocol and Hull Requirement Act also provides
a reasonable timeframe for implementing these standards.
In the 1990 bill, Congress adopted a sliding scale for when vessels
needed to have applied the appropriate double hull protections. The
timetable was developed to allow shipping companies and ship owners to
plan for the additional costs--and up to 15 years to implement them.
Under this bill, we will adopt the same time-tested schedule and apply
it to the conversion of cargo vessels.
The Marine Emergency Protocol and Hull Requirement Act is a
commonsense bill that will unquestionably make our waters safer.
In an emergency situation, be it an attack or a condition of low
visibility, the Coast Guard must assume authority over a ship in
danger. It is their responsibility to guide the vessel to safety. This
bill clarifies that they have the authority to do so, and it mandates
that they follow through.
Similarly, vessels carrying a large volume of oil--be it as cargo or
as fuel--have the responsibility to take reasonable steps to prevent
that oil from spilling.
In the event of even a minor accident, a single hull breach is a very
real possibility. This is why we mandated that oil tankers implement a
double containment system in 1990.
It has come time to close this loophole and call all oil, oil. Fuel
oil is just as detrimental and just as deadly as oil that is carried in
the cargo hold of a ship. Therefore it should have to be contained with
an equal level of protection.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on this very important
matter, passing this important piece of commonsense legislation.
______
By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Salazar, and Mr.
Tester):
S. 2842. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to carry out
annual inspections of canals, levees, tunnels, dikes, pumping plants,
dams, and reservoirs under the jurisdiction of the Secretary, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the
bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2842
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 ``Aging Water Infrastructure
and Maintenance Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Inspection.--The term ``inspection'' means an
inspection of a project facility carried out by the
Secretary--
(A) to assess and determine the general condition of the
project facility; and
(B) to estimate the value of property, and the size of the
population, that would be at risk if the project facility
fails, is breached, or otherwise allows flooding to occur.
(2) Project facility.--The term ``project facility'' means
any part or incidental feature of a reclamation or irrigation
project (including any canal, levee, tunnel, dike, pumping
plant, dam, or reservoir) that is--
(A) under the jurisdiction of the Secretary (including any
facility owned by the Department of the Interior); and
(B) not covered by the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of
1978 (43 U.S.C. 506 et seq.).
(3) Reserved project facility.--The term ``reserved project
facility'' means any project facility at which the Secretary
carries out the operation and maintenance of the project
facility.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of
Reclamation.
(5) Transferred project facility.--The term ``transferred
project facility'' means a project facility the operation and
maintenance of which is carried out by a non-Federal entity.
SEC. 3. INSPECTION OF PROJECT FACILITIES.
(a) Inspections.--
(1) Initial inspection period.--
(A) In general.--In accordance with subparagraph (B), not
later than 1 year after the
[[Page S2949]]
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct an
inspection of not less than 75 percent of all project
facilities.
(B) Selection of project facilities.--In selecting project
facilities to inspect during the initial inspection period
under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall take into account
the risk posed by each project facility to public health or
safety, or property.
(2) Final inspection period.--Not later than 2 years after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
conduct an inspection of each project facility not inspected
by the Secretary during the initial inspection period under
paragraph (1)(A).
(3) Reimbursement relating to inspections of transferred
project facilities.--Notwithstanding any applicable law
(including regulations), with respect to an inspection of a
transferred project facility carried out under this
subsection, the Secretary may not request from the non-
Federal entity that carries out the operation and maintenance
of the transferred project facility reimbursement for costs
arising from the inspection.
(4) Periodic review of inspections.--Not later than 3 years
after the date described in paragraph (2) and every 3 years
thereafter, the Secretary shall carry out a review of each
inspection carried out under paragraphs (1) and (2).
(b) Use of Inspection Data.--The Secretary shall use the
data collected by the Secretary through the conduct of the
inspections under paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a)--
(1) to develop for each reserved project facility a
detailed schedule for the conduct of regular maintenance;
(2) to develop for, and provide to, each non-Federal entity
that carries out the operation and maintenance of a
transferred project facility--
(A) a detailed schedule for the conduct of regular
maintenance; and
(B) a document that contains guidance describing the manner
by which to comply with the schedule described in
subparagraph (A); and
(3) to create a national priorities list that contains a
description of each project facility that requires the most
urgent maintenance with respect to the infrastructure of the
project facility.
(c) National Priorities List.--
(1) Annual review.--Not later than 1 year after the date on
which the Secretary develops the national priorities list
under subsection (b)(3) and annually thereafter, the
Secretary shall carry out a review of each project facility
to update the list for the year covered by the review.
(2) Publication.--The national priorities list shall be
published by the Secretary in the budget justification of the
Department of the Interior for the year covered by the
national priorities list.
(d) State Participation.--In conducting an inspection of a
project facility under subsection (a), the Secretary shall--
(1) notify the appropriate State agency of the State in
which the project facility is located of the inspection;
(2) allow the State agency described in paragraph (1) to
participate in the inspection of the project facility; and
(3) provide to the State agency described in paragraph (1)
a report that describes the results of the inspection of the
project facility.
SEC. 4. FEDERAL STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR PROJECT
FACILITIES.
(a) Promulgation of Standards.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, in accordance with paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall promulgate final regulations to establish
standards for the condition and maintenance of project
facilities.
(2) Contents.--The regulations promulgated by the Secretary
under paragraph (1) shall contain a detailed description of
each condition with which a project facility shall comply to
be eligible to be considered by the Secretary--
(A) to function properly and in accordance with the
objectives of the project facility; and
(B) to operate in a manner to ensure, to the maximum extent
practicable--
(i) the safety of populations located in close proximity to
the project facility; and
(ii) the preservation of property located in close
proximity to the project facility.
(b) Promulgation of Guidelines.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, in accordance with paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall promulgate final regulations to establish
guidelines--
(A) to implement this Act; and
(B) to ensure compliance with the regulations promulgated
by the Secretary under subsection (a).
(2) Contents.--The regulations promulgated by the Secretary
under paragraph (1) shall reflect an agency-wide policy with
respect to the type, and proportion of, activities relating
to the operation and maintenance of a project facility that
may be appropriately carried out by a non-Federal entity,
taking into account--
(A) any economic benefit that may result from the carrying
out of the activities by a non-Federal entity; and
(B) the capabilities of the non-Federal entity to carry out
the activities.
SEC. 5. MODIFICATION OF PROJECT FACILITIES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out or, in
accordance with subsection (b), provide to a non-Federal
entity financial support to carry out, any modification to a
project facility that the Secretary determines to be
reasonably required to preserve the structural safety of the
project facility.
(b) Reimbursement of Costs Arising From the Repair of
Structurally Deficient Transferred Project Facilities.--
(1) Compliant transferred project facilities.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), to reimburse
a non-Federal entity for costs arising from the carrying out
of repair activities to improve the safety of a transferred
project facility, the Secretary may provide to the non-
Federal entity an amount equal to 65 percent of the costs
incurred by the non-Federal entity to carry out the repair
activities.
(B) Determination of secretary.--The Secretary shall
reimburse the non-Federal entity described in subparagraph
(A) if the Secretary determines that--
(i) the transferred project facility of the non-Federal
entity is structurally deficient; and
(ii) the structural deficiency is not a result of
noncompliance with any regulation promulgated by the
Secretary under section 4.
(2) Noncompliant transferred project facilities.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary may carry out any repair
activity that the Secretary determines to be necessary to
minimize the risk of imminent harm to public health or
safety, or property--
(i) if the Secretary determines that--
(I) the transferred project facility is structurally
deficient; and
(II) the structural deficiency is a result of noncompliance
with any regulation promulgated by the Secretary under
section 4; and
(ii) after the date on which the Secretary consults with
the non-Federal entity that carries out the operation and
maintenance of the transferred project facility.
(B) Reimbursement.--In accordance with any applicable law
(including regulations) or agreement, the Secretary may seek
reimbursement from the non-Federal entity that carries out
the operation and maintenance of the transferred project
facility described in subparagraph (A) for costs arising from
each repair activity carried out by the Secretary under that
subparagraph.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Inspection of Project Facilities.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out section 3--
(1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
(2) $1,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2013.
(b) Modification of Project Facilities.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out section 5.
______
By Mr. KERRY:
S. 2847. A bill to amend the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to allow
Federal home loan banks to invest surplus funds in student loan
securities and make advances for student loan financing, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, to many young people, from all walks of
life, are either struggling to pay for college or flat out can't afford
it. Those who aren't able to incur the steep costs of a college
education are not only losing out on a degree, but setting themselves
up to face a lifetime of lost opportunities, as study after study shows
college graduates are the most attractive candidates for the fastest-
growing and best-paying jobs of tomorrow. Greater college access,
gained through financial assistance, is critical to making the American
dream a reality for all.
Yet prospective student borrowers are about to encounter massive
impediments to acquiring quality, affordable private loans. The credit
crunch currently impacting the home mortgage sector is set to extend to
the student loan marketplace. Without sufficient liquidity in the
market, student borrowers will find it harder and harder to find loans
for their costs of college next year. According to FinAid.org, student
loan originators are increasingly choosing to exit or suspend their
participation in all or part of the Federal Family Education Loan
Program, FFELP--45 since last August alone.
Unfortunately, however, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bemanke has
indicated that the Federal Reserve is unlikely to take aggressive
action at this time to help the student loan marketplace. Therefore, I
am seeking to address this significant issue by introducing the
Emergency Student Loan Market Liquidity Act.
This legislation will temporarily amend the Federal Home Loan Bank
Act to allow the Federal Home Loan Banks to invest surplus funds not
needed for advances to its member banks for student loan-related
securities. It would also allow the Federal Home Loan Banks to accept
student loans and student loan-related securities as collateral.
Finally, the bill authorizes each Federal Home loan Bank to provide
secured advances to its members
[[Page S2950]]
to originate student loans or finance student loan-related activities.
This will provide funds for banks to help provide critically-needed
student loans during these difficult economic times.
The Federal Home Loan Banks are today an essential source of stable,
low-cost funds to financial institutions for home mortgage, small
business, and rural and agricultural loans. With their members, the
Federal Home Loan Banks represent one of the largest sources of home
mortgage and community credit. There are twelve Federal Home Loan
Banks, including one in Boston, each located in different regions of
the country. Their cooperative structure is ideal for serving the
system's 8,100 member lenders.
Today, the Federal Home Loan Banks provide billions of dollars of
primary liquidity to approximately 80 percent of the Nation's financial
institutions. By providing this additional student loan authorization
to its members, member institutions will be able to remain active in
the student loan marketplace and help students pay for their education.
This legislation is absolutely vital to securing the opportunity of
higher education for all who choose to pursue it.
____________________