[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 68 (Friday, May 7, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3431-S3432]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to
the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 195, H.R. 3619.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3619) to authorize appropriations for the
Coast Guard for fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. CONRAD. This is the Statement of Budgetary Effects of PAYGO
Legislation for H.R. 3619, as amended by S.A. 3912. This statement has
been prepared pursuant to Section 4 of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act
of 2010 (Public Law 111-139), and is being submitted for printing in
the Congressional Record prior to passage of H.R. 3619, as amended, by
the Senate.
Total Budgetary Effects of H.R. 3619, as amended for the 5-
year Statutory PAYGO Scorecard: $2 million increase in the
deficit.
Total Budgetary Effects of H.R. 3619, as amended for the 10-
year Statutory PAYGO Scorecard: $6 million increase in the
deficit.
Also submitted for the Record as part of this statement is a table
prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, which provides additional
information on the budgetary effects of this Act.
CBO ESTIMATE OF THE STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR AN AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 3619, THE COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2010 AND 2011, AS PROVIDED TO CBO BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, COMMERCE, AND TRANSPORTATION ON MAY 3, 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2010-2015 2010-2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Increase or Decrease (-) in the Deficit
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6
a.............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a H.R. 3619 would increase by $4 million over the 2010-2020 period certain annual payments made by the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (an increase in
direct spending). Provisions of the bill also would reduce offsetting receipts (a credit against direct spending) by about $2 million over the 2010-
2020 period because the bill directs the Coast Guard to donate--rather than sell--certain properties to local governments in Michigan.
[[Page S3432]]
liquefied natural gas facilities
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my
colleague from Rhode Island, Mr. Whitehouse, and my colleague from West
Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller.
Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee
for his leadership in advancing this bill. As he, Senator Whitehouse,
and I have discussed, there is significant concern with respect to the
safety and security of proposed liquefied natural gas, LNG, facilities
throughout the country. Given the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the
Gulf of Mexico, we know that no system for handling volatile substances
is fool-proof.
Over the last several years, the people of Rhode Island have been
greatly concerned about proposals to develop LNG facilities on or in
close proximity to Rhode Island's shores, as well as proposals to
transit LNG traffic through our waterways. I have come to the floor on
many occasions to express my deep concerns about the wisdom of these
projects; not as a matter of reflexive opposition to LNG but as a
matter of the appropriateness of siting these facilities with little
State control.
This includes a proposal in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that
will have significant impact on the State of Rhode Island, as it calls
for vessels to transit through Narragansett Bay and off-load at an
offshore berth in Mount Hope Bay just outside of Rhode Island waters.
Over the years, members of the Rhode Island and Massachusetts
delegations have raised concerns about this project, but the most
severe impacts of the vessel traffic and related safety and security
measures will be on Rhode Island, which has very little authority to
influence the process. The Coast Guard has the responsibility of
issuing so-called Letters of Recommendation to establish the
suitability of a waterway to accommodate this type of vessel traffic
and operation. Its determination is critical in the siting LNG
facilities. Unfortunately, Rhode Island, like other states, has little
recourse to object to the findings or conditions laid out by the Coast
Guard, even though the bulk of the vessel activity will take place in
its state waters. I believe the state should have a say about the
appropriateness of activities in its waterways and should be consulted,
especially about the broader impacts of LNG facilities and vessel
traffic on other waterway users and on communities.
Although the underlying House bill includes a port security title,
the substitute does not. While I recognize that and that the Committee
will be dealing with port security legislation later this year, I think
that it is critical that we act on this issue as soon as possible. I
would like to work with the Chairman in crafting that bill, but I would
also ask for his commitment to work to address the issues related to
LNG facilities during conference with the House on the Coast Guard
Reauthorization bill.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I share the sentiments of the senior
Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed.
Rhode Islanders are strongly opposed to this project. Furthermore,
the process for siting the LNG facility has afforded us too few
opportunities to address the impacts it will have on our state's
economy, safety, and environment.
The Coast Guard is charged with the narrow task of determining
whether LNG tankers can safely transit Rhode Island waters on their way
to an offshore berthing station just on the other side of the state
line in Massachusetts. However, the safe transit of these tankers is
only one of the many important considerations that can, and should, be
taken into account in determining the suitability of such a project.
Narragansett Bay is the backbone of the Rhode Island economy, as it
sustains our fishing, recreation, and tourism sectors. The proposed LNG
facility in Fall River threatens to undermine these pillars of our
economy.
I am not opposed to LNG as a fuel source. However, I have serious
concerns with the proposal under consideration. The LNG tankers
transiting Rhode Island waters must pass through heavily populated
communities, under the presence of heavy security. The Coast Guard
admits that this will likely displace other users of the bay and
disrupt traffic on the bridges the tankers must travel beneath. This is
too high a burden for Rhode Island to carry for a facility that is
located in a neighboring state--and I am not convinced this burden is
worth the marginal benefits of the proposed LNG facility.
I thank the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Senator
Rockefeller, for his willingness to work with us on an issue critical
to the State of Rhode Island.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I am aware of both Senators' concerns and I will
work with each of you related to LNG facilities during conference with
the House on the Coast Guard Reauthorization bill.
Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to this issue being
addressed in the final Coast Guard Reauthorization bill.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that the Cantwell substitute
amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to; the bill,
as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider
be laid upon the table, and that any statements be printed in the
Record without further intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3912) was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill (H.R. 3619) was read the third time and passed.
____________________