[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.

                          ____________________