[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.

                          ____________________