[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 160 (Wednesday, December 12, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7972-S7973]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2012

  Mr. BEGICH. Madam President, I now lay before the Senate a message 
from the House with respect to H.R. 2838.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message 
from the House of Representatives:
       Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives 
     (H.R. 2838) entitled ``An Act to authorize appropriations for 
     the Coast Guard for fiscal years 2012 through 2015, and for 
     other purposes.'', do pass with amendments.


                     american Fisheries Act Vessels

  Mr. BEGICH. Madam President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my 
colleague from the State of Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, and my colleague 
from the State of Washington, Ms. Cantwell, regarding a provision in 
H.R. 2838, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012, 
that deals with two great fisheries of the Bering Sea. The American 
Fisheries Act--AFA--regulates one of the single greatest fishery 
resources in the world: Alaska Pollock. This fishery produces over 2 
billion pounds of product in most years and is sustainably harvested, 
thanks to standards set under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act. Amendment 80 to the Bering Sea Groundfish Fishery 
Management Plan regulates fishing for other species of groundfish like 
Pacific cod, Atka mackerel and yellowfin sole and while smaller than 
the AFA fishery, it still ranks among the major fisheries of the world.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I agree these are two great fisheries 
and economic drivers of our thriving seafood industry. I have a 
question about Section 307 of H.R. 2838, which I understand is intended 
to clarify longstanding restrictions that have applied with respect to 
certain vessels under the American Fisheries Act. I know that Senator 
Cantwell and the senior Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, have 
worked with Senator Begich and others to develop this language for 
inclusion in the final version of the Coast Guard bill as received from 
the other body last week, and I think it is important for us to make 
clear what it is intended to do. I am told that this provision is 
designed to maintain and reinforce the separation that exists between 
these two fisheries, and nothing more. Currently, none of these 20 AFA 
vessels participate in the Amendment 80 fishery, and under Amendment 97 
to the Bering Sea Fishery Management Plan they are expressly prohibited 
from doing so. Is it true that Section 307 maintains this separation?
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I appreciate Senator Murkowski raising 
this issue, as I know it is of great importance to both our States, and 
I am happy to discuss the intent and effect of the provision to which 
she is referring. Senator Murray and I have worked closely with Senator 
Begich, with the Commerce Committee, and with our colleagues in the 
other body to develop this language for inclusion in the Coast Guard 
bill. Section 307 of H.R. 2838 does, as Senator Murkowski states, 
clarify longstanding restrictions that apply to certain vessels under 
the American Fisheries Act. The intent of this language is to maintain 
the status quo between two separate and distinct fisheries: one 
regulated under the American Fisheries Act and the other by Amendment 
80 to the Bering Sea Fishery Management Plan. There has always been a 
careful balance struck between these two sectors, and we need to 
maintain that balance in order to protect the investments and job 
opportunities they provide. This language is in no way intended to 
upset that balance, but rather to insure that the status quo of 
separate and mutually exclusive sectors remains in place while 
affording the Amendment 80 fleet the opportunity to replace their older 
vessels with new ones and to encourage the economic investments that 
would follow.
  Mr. BEGICH Madam President, as chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee 
on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and the Coast Guard, I concur with my 
colleagues that this is an important provision, and I want to reiterate 
that it is only designed to maintain and reinforce the separation 
between these two fisheries, and nothing more. As NOAA informed our 
offices via email this week: ``There is currently a regulatory 
prohibition on AFA vessels from being used as replacement vessels in 
the Amendment 80 fleet. The concerns addressed in the assistance 
address what would occur if that regulatory prohibition were to be 
removed. Subject to judicial interpretation, any change to the status 
quo would need to be made through the Council's and NOAA Fisheries' 
rulemaking process and is unlikely to occur in the near future.''
  I thank my colleagues.


                             survival craft

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, as my colleagues know, I was the lead 
Senate author of the Americans with Disabilities Act the ADA. The ADA 
stands for a simple proposition--that disability is a natural part of 
the human experience and that all people with disabilities have a right 
to make choices and participate fully in all aspects of society. Thanks 
to the ADA, our country has become a more welcoming place not just for 
people with a variety of disabilities but for everyone.
  In that context, I want to raise an issue in H.R. 2838, the Coast 
Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012. Under current law, there 
is a provision that requires that no survival craft allow a person to 
be submerged in water. H.R. 2838 requires a study and report on this 
requirement to be completed within 6 months. While I have no objection 
to the Coast Guard doing another report on the issue, I want to be sure 
that this study will appropriately take into account the specific needs 
of people with a diverse variety of disabilities who may need to 
utilize these survival craft. For example, my expectation is that the 
study would not recommend that all individuals be required to hold on 
to the outside of the survival craft or other items, since an 
individual with a significant disability may not be able to do so, as a 
result of their disability. In addition, it is important that not only 
the means of egress, but also the avenues for evacuation and rescue 
should be accessible for people with disabilities.
  I would also want to be sure that the study will be completed within 
the 6 month designated period.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the comments 
of

[[Page S7973]]

the Senator from Iowa. My expectation is that the Coast Guard study and 
report will include the consideration of the specific needs of 
individuals with disabilities with respect to their use of survival 
craft, and will not make any recommendations that could be considered 
discriminatory against people with disabilities, or require individuals 
with disabilities to perform actions which they may be unable to do as 
a result of their specific disability. The goal of the study and report 
should be an inclusive one which allows people with disabilities to 
participate fully in the underlying activity, and provides a full and 
equal opportunity for each person with a disability to utilize these 
survival craft in a safe manner, as necessary. I will continue to work 
with my colleague from Iowa and the Coast Guard on these issues and I 
will encourage the Coast Guard to complete their report within the 6 
month period so that new requirements will take effect in a timely 
manner.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr President, I appreciate the efforts of the Senator 
from West Virginia, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, and I look 
forward to continuing to work with him to assure that individuals with 
disabilities have access to survival craft that will properly protect 
them from injury.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I rise today to celebrate the final 
passage of a reconciled Coast Guard authorization bill for fiscal years 
2013 and 2014. This achievement is the culmination of several months of 
careful negotiation between the Senate and the House, and is a tribute 
to what can happen when we rise above trivial partisanship, roll up our 
sleeves, and reach across the aisle on behalf of the American people.
  The United States Coast Guard is truly unique among the services and 
agencies of the Federal Government. As a branch of our Armed Forces, it 
defends the Nation in time of war, but it also functions as a Federal 
agency with law enforcement and regulatory authority in a number of 
areas critical to our national security, economic security, and 
environment. Today, the Coast Guard is charged with 11 statutory 
missions that include saving lives at sea; protecting our ports, 
waterways, and maritime infrastructure from terrorists; responding to 
natural disasters; interdicting drugs and migrants at sea; and 
protecting our marine environment.
  Each and every day, we ask the 42,000 men and women of the Coast 
Guard to put their lives on the line to carry out these important 
missions. Over the past few years, we have seen the Coast Guard take 
the lead in responding to numerous crises like Hurricanes Katrina and 
Sandy, the earthquake in Haiti, and the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 
In all of these cases, the Coast Guard has met and exceeded our 
expectations. We have asked them to do more with less and they have 
responded. The least we can do is to make sure they have the tools 
essential to carrying out their missions successfully. With the passage 
of this year's Coast Guard reauthorization bill, I believe we're on our 
way towards meeting that responsibility.
  This bipartisan bill authorizes additional funding and personnel 
levels for the Coast Guard over fiscal years 2013 and 2014, improving 
its ability to carry out its three overarching roles of maritime 
security, safety and stewardship successfully. The bill also makes a 
number of changes to the Coast Guard's major acquisitions authorities 
critical to the ongoing and needed recapitalization of its aging fleet. 
Additionally, the bill addresses America's increasing presence in a 
changing Arctic by ensuring that the Coast Guard maintains and 
strengthens its capability to conduct polar ice operations in support 
of its statutory missions and operational needs of the United States 
Navy. Importantly, the bill also gives the Coast Guard greater parity 
with its sister Armed Services by further aligning Coast Guard 
management and personnel authorities with statutory authorities of the 
Department of Defense to better support its service members and their 
families.
  The bill's passage would not have been successful without the 
tireless efforts of many here in Congress. I first want to thank 
Senator Begich, who, after assuming the chairmanship of the Oceans 
Subcommittee at the beginning of this Congress, quickly went to work on 
drafting the Senate's version of the Coast Guard bill. His legislation, 
of which I was a proud cosponsor, served as a blueprint for the 
Senate's negotiations with the House.
  I also want to thank my dear friend and ranking member of the 
Commerce Committee, Senator Hutchison. Her efforts were instrumental to 
moving the ball down the field. It is increasingly difficult to get 
consensus in this body, particularly for legislation that needs 
unanimity. Without her efforts to hammer out differences across the 
aisle, today's achievement would not have been possible. Senator 
Hutchison will be missed.
  In recent weeks, much attention was given to the efforts to pass 
needed reauthorization for the Department of Defense and each of the 
Armed Services under it. It was a tough slog, but in the end it 
demonstrated what can be achieved when the Senate works as it should. 
In its own quiet way, the passage of this legislation for this 
essential service branch is a testament to that as well.
  Mr. BEGICH. I further ask that the Senate immediately proceed to a 
voice vote on a motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment to H.R. 2838.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. BEGICH. I further ask that the motion to reconsider be made and 
laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; and that any 
statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BEGICH. To conclude, this is the Coast Guard reauthorization 
bill. It is a bill that has taken a while to work out between all of 
the parties, but it has incredible value, obviously, for my home State 
of Alaska and for the Presiding Officer's home State of Washington and 
for, really, the country to make sure we have the right elements for 
our Coast Guard. It is very exciting to see it now moves from this 
side, and we anticipate the House will accept it.
  So thank you very much, Madam President. I note the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________