[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 17, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2197-S2198]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Coast Guard Authorization Bill

  Mr. President, there was a poll in the city of Chicago a few years 
ago by the Chicago Tribune, and they asked the residents of that city: 
What is the greatest asset in the city of Chicago? Overwhelmingly, they 
all said the same thing: Lake Michigan. That is understandable. If you 
have been to that beautiful city and seen that lakefront and realized 
the impact it has on the quality of life, it is understandable that 
Chicagoans would value it the most.
  Millions of people visit Lake Michigan each year. They swim, kayak, 
and boat. They just walk along the beach and have little picnics. It 
really is a major asset. The lake is the primary source of drinking 
water for more than 10 million people not just in Illinois but in 
Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, and many other States. Together, the 
Great Lakes support a multibillion-dollar fishing industry, dozens of 
local economies, and thousands of small businesses. However, the Coast 
Guard reauthorization bill, which could come before the Senate as early 
as tomorrow, will do irreversible damage to the Great Lakes, and I am 
urging my colleagues to oppose it.
  It is not uncommon in this Chamber for Members from each State to 
stand up from time to time and tell a story to their colleagues about 
something in their State of great personal value to them and to plead 
with their colleagues to understand what this means and to stand by 
them in protecting a great natural resource or a great natural asset.
  The bill itself--the Coast Guard reauthorization--I don't have a 
problem with. It does a lot of good things for an important part of our 
military service. It helps equip the Coast Guard with the tools they 
are going to need so they can keep us safe and be part of the critical 
homeland security mission. There is, however, one provision in the bill 
that should not be there.
  This bill was reported by the Commerce Committee. One of the 
provisions in this bill should never have started in the Commerce 
Committee; it should be in the Environment Committee. It is known as 
the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act, or VIDA. This provision in the 
Coast Guard reauthorization bill will undermine the Clean Water Act 
just to give a generous deal to one specific industry.
  VIDA exempts the shipping industry from being regulated by the 
Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act. It places it 
instead under the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is a great organization, 
and there are great men and women serving there. The Coast Guard, 
however, has no expertise in setting standards for clean water; the 
Environmental Protection Agency has that responsibility. This bill 
takes that responsibility away from the EPA.
  This bill also preempts the States and their rights to implement 
their own standards that would meet specific needs and limits the 
public's ability to seek action in court.
  Who opposes this bill? The attorney general of the State of Illinois, 
as well as the attorneys general from New York, California, Maine, 
Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, 
so far.
  The bill's supporters say all of this is necessary to establish a 
uniform national standard, but the bill doesn't do that. Instead, it 
cuts a big Great Lakes-sized doughnut hole out of its own standard and 
exempts ships operating on the Great Lakes from meeting the same ``best 
available control technology'' standard that all other shippers are 
required to meet. It is a sweetheart deal for shippers on the Great 
Lakes.
  VIDA also makes it almost impossible for anyone to ever require ships 
operating on the Great Lakes to install new pollution controls in the 
future. This means these ships would likely never be required to use 
any available technology to prevent the spread of invasive species like 
mussels, blood red shrimp, and Asian carp.
  I can't tell you how much money we have spent to stop the Asian carp 
from invading the Great Lakes. We think it is going to destroy the 
Great Lakes as a marine habitat if we are not careful, and we have 
stopped them so far. This irresponsible measure as part of the Coast 
Guard reauthorization goes in exactly the opposite direction. It opens 
the door for invasive species invading our Great Lakes through ballast 
water. That is unacceptable.
  Chicagoans deserve to know that ships operating on Lake Michigan are 
using the best technology available to prevent the discharge of harmful 
chemicals into their primary drinking water and invasive species, but 
the bill's exemptions go far beyond the Great Lakes.
  Another provision of VIDA would prevent EPA and States from enforcing 
standards to stop the shipping industry from releasing fluorinated 
chemicals into the lakes and oceans across the country. Many of my 
colleagues have become familiar with chemicals like PFAS and PFOA after 
they contaminated critical groundwater sources in their own States.
  As the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I 
can't tell you how many colleagues from all across the United States 
have now discovered that these perfluorinated chemicals are a danger to 
their drinking supply and a public health hazard. They come to me 
begging for Federal funds to clean up the messes at military bases and 
airports. Now we are considering a bill on the floor that weakens the 
standard for release of those chemicals into our water supply. What are 
we thinking? Is the shipping industry worth that much that we turn our 
backs on this public health hazard?
  I have seen how the military has used these chemicals over the years 
for legitimate purposes like firefighting. Now we are going to spend 
millions of dollars cleaning them up, and this Coast Guard bill is 
going to make it worse. Allowing the commercial shipping industry to 
freely release these chemicals into bodies of water without proper 
oversight is downright disgusting.
  All of these reasons are why more than 115 environmental 
organizations have announced their opposition to this Coast Guard bill. 
It has nothing to do with the Coast Guard--we value them; we treasure 
them; we want to help them--but to slip this provision in, this 
environmental rider which endangers the water supply for millions of 
Americans, is just wrong.
  Despite all these objections, Senator McConnell now wants to bring 
this bill to the floor in a way that will limit debate, doesn't allow 
for any amendments to change it, and provides no pathway to improve the 
bill or to delete this terrible provision. This is not how to consider 
an issue that is so important with so many people concerned about it.
  I urge my colleagues, when this measure of the Coast Guard 
reauthorization comes up for a vote on cloture on concurrence, to vote 
no.
  Today it is the Great Lakes. Tomorrow it is your backyard, it is your 
water supply that some special interest group will want to contaminate 
in the name of more profits. We can do better. We owe it to our kids to 
do better.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). The Senator from Arizona.

[[Page S2198]]

  



                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 1551

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today, as I have and will continue 
to do until we find a resolution to this issue. I rise to advocate for 
a solution to address the issue of securing our border and protecting 
those young immigrants impacted by an uncertain future in the DACA 
Program.
  Last month, I offered legislation to extend DACA for 3 years and to 
provide 3 years of increased funding for border security--this so-
called 3-for-3 plan. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues have 
repeatedly chosen to block this measure from coming to the floor, but 
the President's decision to send National Guard troops to the border 
displays a continued interest to secure the border. To take care of 
that aspect, this bill would provide significant resources to do just 
that, to help secure the border, at the same time protecting these 
young immigrants from possible deportation.
  I am the first to admit this solution is far from perfect, but it 
provides a temporary fix for these critical problems and will provide 
all sides of the debate with just enough of what they want. It is a 
compromise. It would begin the process of funding the President's plan 
to improve border security and, as I mentioned, ensure DACA recipients 
will not lose protections and face possible deportation.
  These young immigrants were brought here through no fault of their 
own. They have waited long enough for these protections. Likewise, 
border communities, like in my home State of Arizona, have waited long 
enough for increased security along our southern border.
  As I have said before, we in Congress have too regularly confused 
action with results and have been entirely too comfortable ignoring 
problems that are just actually tough to solve. We may not be able to 
deliver a permanent solution to these problems at this time, but we now 
have an opportunity to offer at least some action on them. There are 
many people whose lives and well-being depend on our ability to deliver 
meaningful results.
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 300, H.R. 1551. I further ask 
that the Flake substitute amendment at the desk be considered and 
agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and 
passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon 
the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  If no one yields time, the time will be charged equally.
  The majority whip.