[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 150 (Wednesday, December 10, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6480-S6481]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS 2015 AND 2016
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am about to ask for unanimous consent
to pass a substitute amendment to the Coast Guard bill. Senator Vitter
and I hope to get into a bit of a colloquy over it, but first I want to
explain what we are doing here.
The Coast Guard bill includes the text of S. 2963, a bill that I
introduced to permanently eliminate the requirement that small fishing
boats obtain a permit for discharges incidental to normal operation.
This is really important for our small boat fishermen. The bill has
14 cosponsors. I am very happy that Senator Murkowski is now a
cosponsor of that important legislation.
This substitute that is at the desk includes that permanent fix so
that never again do small fishermen have to worry about being subjected
to these permits.
It exempts commercial vessels less than 79 feet from having to get
this discharge permit.
We first enacted a moratorium on permits in 2008. We have extended it
twice. The current moratorium expires next week. If we don't act, these
small vessels will require a permit for the first time. So instead of
kicking the can down the road again with these moratoria, I think it is
time to say, once and for all, these small vessels do not and will
never need a permit. I think a temporary moratorium leaves thousands of
the boat operators and the fishermen in limbo instead of giving them
permanent certainty.
They are different from large ships that discharge ballast water and
introduce harmful invasive species into our coastal waters. That is why
a broad array of groups, including the American Sport Fishing
Association, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Marine Retailers
Association of America, the National Marine Manufacturers Association,
and many others, support this permanent exemption for our small boats.
I hope colleagues will support this, but I understand there is
another proposal coming forward.
I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce Committee be discharged
from further consideration of S. 2444; the Senate proceed to its
immediate consideration; that the substitute amendment containing a
permanent exemption for discharges from small commercial vessels and
fishing vessels--and that is at the desk--be agreed to; the bill, as
amended, be read three times and passed; the title amendment be agreed
to; and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the
table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
I appreciate the comments of the Senator from California and want to
work with her toward a common goal. In that spirit, I ask unanimous
consent that the Senator modify her request and agree to the substitute
amendment, which is also at the desk, which includes a 3-year extension
of the vessel discharge moratorium.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from California so modify her
request?
Mrs. BOXER. I reserve the right to object, but I do not intend to
object.
I wish to say I am going to agree to this 3-year moratorium but I am
a little stunned as to why we are doing this again. We could give these
small boats a permanent exemption. It is an important economic issue.
I don't like this approach, but it is the best we can do. I want the
American people and the fishermen to know we tried so hard to get this
fixed permanently. But I am glad we have a 3-year moratorium. It is
better than nothing, and I will therefore agree to the modification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request, as
modified?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
The amendment (No. 3997) in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The bill (S. 2444), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a
third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
The title amendment (No. 3998) was agreed to, as follows:
(Purpose: To amend the title)
Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to authorize
appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2015, and
for other purposes.''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I wish to weigh in on this issue,
because it is a critically important issue for my State--for all
coastal States, or any State that has commercial fishermen, as my
colleague from California and as my colleague from Louisiana know.
I appreciate the fact that we have come to a place where we are going
to save these small fishermen from the potential burden of reporting to
EPA for any incidental discharge from their vessels for the next 3
years.
I need to acknowledge the good work of my friend from California. She
has recognized that we began this years ago, back in 2008, when we had
to work together at that time to get a short-term extension to ensure
that our small-vessel owners would not be subjected to these EPA
requirements that most people would say: What is this reporting all
about?
For those who need a little more graphic detail as to what we are
talking about, when you take a commercial fishing vessel out, a 45-foot
commercial fishing vessel, and you have a good day fishing, there are
some salmon guts on the deck, a little bit of slime, and you hose it
off. That would be an incidental discharge that would be reportable to
the EPA. And if you fail to report, you could be subject to civil
penalties. That is not what we are talking about here.
I think it is important to note that we have two leaders here in the
Senate who perhaps approach some of the EPA issues from a different
angle. Senator Boxer has been a staunch advocate for making sure that
when we are talking about clean air and clean water, we are complying
with those regulations. Senator Vitter has also been a staunch advocate
for making sure our small businesses, our jobs, and our economic
opportunities aren't stymied by these regulations.
So the fact that we have two Members coming together to acknowledge
we have to do something to ensure these regulations do not impede the
ability of our small fishermen, of our commercial operators in the
water--those vessels below 79 feet--that we are not harming them.
In my home State of Alaska, we are talking about 8,500 commercial
fishermen who were most anxious that 8 days from now they were going to
be put in a position where they were effectively violating EPA
regulations, subject to civil penalties, for the simple act of runoff
off of their decks.
So I concur with Senator Boxer, this is something we don't need to be
going from year to year to year to address. We don't need to inject
this uncertainty into the operations of our hard-working fishing
families. We need to have a permanent solution. I want to work with
that permanent solution. Senator Vitter has clearly indicated he is
willing to help us with that. Senator Thune in Commerce has made that
clear. We know we have to address the ballast issues. We will do that.
And I am looking forward to being engaged with that in the 114th
Congress.
But for now, I think it is critically important that consensus has
been reached. I acknowledge the good work of both the Senator from
Louisiana and the Senator from California, and Senator Thune, for
getting us to this point where we can take the pressure off of our
small commercial operators and ensure that they can do what they do so
very well.
I look forward to the next Congress where we are making this
permanent and, again, where we are dealing with so many of the other
issues. But I thank my colleagues today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
[[Page S6481]]
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I want to make sure I thank Senator
Murkowski and Senator Begich. When I started this, Senator Begich was
my first cosponsor and Senator Murkowski made this bipartisan.
I think the important thing was that we could have done it
permanently and I just don't want that lost. We could have done it
permanently, and we didn't, and that is sad. There are reasons for
that. I wasn't born yesterday, as most of you can tell.
I know why it wasn't done. People are going to use this as the little
engine that could to drive some other stuff behind it which is not good
stuff. I want to see that we can protect our small boats, and I am
going to continue to do that. I hope we will work together as we move
forward in this new Senate, run by--in the case of the committee I
proudly chair--Senator Inhofe, who I think will be very good on this
issue; Senator Thune, who we know is good on this issue.
So we have the pieces in place. And whatever objections there were, I
don't think they are really objections to the permanency, they are
political objections to try and use this to get some other bad stuff
attached to it, and I am not going to let that happen, let me tell you
right now, no way, no how. So whatever someone has in their mind that
they are going to connect to this little baby, it isn't going to
happen, because we can't do that. We can't take one good thing and
destroy it. I am not going to let that happen.
Right now we have a 3-year deal put in place. We can breathe easy. If
I am someone contemplating buying a small boat, this is one less worry
I have. I could have had it permanently; I have it for 3 years. It is
too bad, but at least I have it, and that is good.
____________________