[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 27316-27346]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2003

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Young of Florida). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 416 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 2443.

                              {time}  1530


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2443) to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal 
year 2004, to amend various laws administered by the Coast Guard, and 
for other purposes, with Mr. Ose in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such times I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2443, the Coast Guard 
Maritime Transportation Act of 2003. Before I discuss the bill or make 
comments on it, I would first like to thank the gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the full committee, for all 
of his efforts on behalf of the Coast Guard and, in

[[Page 27317]]

particular, for this bill, also thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), our ranking member, who certainly has been a champion of the 
Coast Guard and worked closely with us, and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner), the ranking member on the Coast Guard Maritime 
Transportation Subcommittee, for their help and cooperation with this 
legislation.
  This legislation was developed in a bipartisan manner and deserves 
the support of all the Members of Congress. The primary purpose of this 
bill is to authorize expenditures for the United States Coast Guard and 
the Federal Maritime Commission for the fiscal year 2004.
  Title I of the bill authorizes for fiscal year 2004 approximately 
$7.1 billion for Coast Guard programs and operations. The bill also 
authorizes the administration's request for 18.5 million for the 
Federal Maritime Commission.
  This legislation will increase funding for Coast Guard programs at a 
level above the administration's request to ensure that the service can 
meet its traditional missions and make meaningful progress toward 
carrying out its homeland security responsibilities under the Maritime 
Transportation Security Act of 2002.
  The bill funds the Coast Guard at levels requested by the President 
plus an additional $460 million. Of this amount, $70 million is for 
conducting the mandated U.S. port security plan approvals, $202 million 
to keep the Deepwater Capital Acquisition Program on track to meet its 
original 20-year implementation plan, $80 million to install equipment 
on already delivered C-130J aircraft, $39 million to establish a west 
coast HITRON squadron, $50 million for conducting foreign port security 
assessments and foreign vessel security plan reviews, and, finally, $19 
million is for making the Truman-Hobbs bridge alterations.
  I am particularly concerned about the funding shortfalls for the 
critically important Deepwater recapitalization program designed to 
replace the Coast Guard's aging fleet of vessels and aircraft. From the 
start, Deepwater has been underfunded, jeopardizing on-time delivery of 
important assets. The effective accomplishment of the Coast Guard's 
national and homeland security missions, as well as its ability to 
sustain the level of performance of its traditional missions, is 
predicated upon having the required funding to recapitalize its aging 
assets sooner than the appropriated 20-year plan.
  As evidence of this, I attended on Saturday the return of the Coast 
Guard cutter Dependable from a drug interdiction mission in the 
Caribbean where it actually had confiscated a record Coast Guard bust. 
The drug smugglers had dumped about 2,500 pounds overboard and the 
Dependable and its crew had actually confiscated about the same amount. 
DEA was there to take control of the substance, to destroy it, but when 
listening to the discussion and listening to the account of how this 
took place, it is remarkable that the Coast Guard cutter Dependable, 
which was commissioned during the 1960s, with a top speed of only 17 
knots and an aging frame, was able to counter the drugies with their 
fast boat with only a rigid-hull inflatable that was like a Corvair 
chasing a Corvette.
  Operation Deepwater is critically needed. I strongly endorse 
increasing the Coast Guard's overall funding level in order to support 
a faster Deepwater recapitalization program commensurate with the 
findings of the Deepwater acceleration plan submitted to the Congress 
in March of 2003.
  In addition to authorizing the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2004 budget 
and personnel resources, the measure also provides parity between 
certain Coast Guard and Department of Defense authorities, improves 
personnel management, and includes provisions to allow the service to 
better accomplish its traditional regulatory and law enforcement 
missions.
  The recent ferry accident in New York Harbor shows that the maritime 
transportation will never be perfect. However, the Coast Guard's 
constant and careful review of vessel and crew minimizes the number of 
maritime accidents we see in the United States. The service's response 
efforts also minimize the impact those incidents have in terms of loss 
of life and damage to property.
  I did hold a hearing in New York, on Tuesday of this week, to look 
for ways in which we can further improve our prevention and response 
system.
  In preparing this bill, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation 
Subcommittee held hearings on the Coast Guard's and the Federal 
Maritime Commission's budget request and the legislative provisions in 
the Coast Guard's proposal. The bill contains many of the Coast Guard's 
legislative requests, as well as items of concern to Members of 
Congress that were brought to our attention.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to commend the men and 
women of the Coast Guard. They do an amazing and remarkable job. Their 
ongoing traditional missions of illegal drug interdiction, of fisheries 
law enforcement, search and rescue, is always making the news. But what 
is really remarkable is the job that they are now doing on homeland and 
port security which is something that is new, that has been added to 
them since the terrible tragedy of September 11 of 2001.
  America benefits from a strong Coast Guard that is equipped to stop 
terrorists and drug smugglers, support the country's defense, protect 
our natural resources, rescue mariners in distress, and respond to 
national emergencies.
  We must act now to put the Coast Guard on sound financial footing, to 
be ready to respond to our increased homeland security demands, and 
other critical duties that the Coast Guard carries out daily. And the 
men and women of the Coast Guard are more than prepared to do their 
mission if we will only give them enough resources, enough assets and 
enough personnel to do the job. This bill will help ensure that that 
happens.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support this piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the good words of the chairman of the 
subcommittee. I note that our full committee chairman has arrived, and 
I will curtail my remarks so that the chairman, the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young) can speak. But I just want to say to what a 
difference a week makes and how refreshing it is to be on the floor 
under an open rule where issues that are of concern to Members can be 
resolved in open fashion and that we can conduct the work of this 
committee in its traditional fashion, working in a bipartisan manner.
  I respect enormously the work of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
LoBiondo), the chairman of the subcommittee, and our ranking member, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), and particularly our 
riverboat captain chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), who 
has not only firsthand experience on the water commanding a vessel, but 
has enormous respect, as I have, for the United States Coast Guard.
  The chairman and I served on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries 
Committee from our very outset of service in the Congress, and through 
that work, we both came to have a great respect and admiration for the 
work of the Coast Guard, which started out, along with the Corps of 
Engineers, as one of the two oldest agencies of the Federal Government 
in its infancy in 1789. It was known as the Revenue Cutter Service and 
provided the first revenue and source of funding for our infant 
republic.
  In the years since then, I have, in my observation and my work on the 
Coast Guard subcommittee, I have observed that there is probably no 
entity of the Federal Government from which the citizens of this 
country get a greater return on their investment than from the United 
States Coast Guard. As a former Commandant once observed, it takes a 
special person to wear this color blue. And they are all special 
people, men and women, of the United States Coast Guard.

[[Page 27318]]

  What I regret about the Coast Guard is that in my 29 years of 
service, I have seen some 27 new responsibilities added by the Congress 
to the list of duties that the Coast Guard must perform. But that list 
of new duties and responsibilities has not been accompanied by a 
commensurate increase in personnel and in funding. And that has 
happened under Democratic and Republican administrations and Democratic 
and Republican Congresses.
  Now, we bring to the floor a $7.1 billion bill to deal with the needs 
of the Coast Guard, and unfortunately, in past Congresses, this bill 
has not become law because of issues that the other body has wanted to 
hang on to it and slow down its progress. This time, the authorization 
has been done through the appropriation process. And I earnestly hope 
that we are not engaged in yet another exercise in futility getting a 
Coast Guard authorization passed and that indeed the other body will 
act expeditiously and not try to tie in unrelated issues to this very 
important authorization.
  I further believe very strongly that although we have provided, I 
think, a responsible funding for the Coast Guard, it is still 
inadequate to the responsibilities that the Congress has saddled the 
Coast Guard with and visited upon it because we felt they could carry 
out all those responsibilities of drug interdiction and immigration 
interdiction, and now the homeland security responsibilities. They 
simply need more personnel and more funding to continue to carry out 
the job and not stretch the human resources of the Coast Guard as thin 
as has been done in the last few years.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Transportation.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
2443, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2003. The bill 
is a result of a bipartisan effort, and it deserves the support of all 
the Members. I especially again want to thank the subcommittee 
chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), and the full 
and subcommittee ranking members, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), for their 
help and cooperation in developing this bill.
  I want to stress that, again, as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) has mentioned, it has been a long time since this bill has 
become a law, and it is time that the other body acts as we pass it 
today.
  I am pleased we are taking the action today to authorize funding for 
the most important programs of the United States Coast Guard and 
Federal Maritime Commission.
  In addition to authorizing the fiscal year of 2004 FMC budget at the 
level requested by the administration, this bill authorizes the fiscal 
year 2004 Coast Guard budget at the level requested by the President, 
plus an additional $460 million.
  Of this amount, $70 million is authorized for the Coast Guard 
domestic port security activities, $80 million is to equip four C-130J 
aircraft for Coast Guard missions, and $202 million is for the Coast 
Guard's Deepwater capital equipment modernization project.
  We have also provided $39 million for an armed Coast Guard helicopter 
squadron, $50 million for Coast Guard foreign port security activities, 
and $19 million for the alteration of bridges which obstruct 
navigation.
  H.R. 2443 will result in improved operation of the Coast Guard and 
the Federal Maritime Commission and safer, more efficient maritime 
transportation.
  However, nearly one-third of our exclusive economic zone lies off the 
shores of Alaska. These waters include the Nation's largest fishery, 
and sufficient cruise ship and oil tanker traffic. Therefore, I am 
concerned about the ability of the Coast Guard to carry out its 
traditional search and rescue, fisheries law enforcement, and vessel 
inspection missions. There are concerns that some of these missions may 
be suffering as a result of the new emphasis on homeland security.
  I remain optimistic that this legislation will provide the Coast 
Guard with the resources and legal authorities necessary to get the 
service back to an acceptable state of mission balance.
  Mr. Chairman, all of us recognize the exceptional work performed by 
the Coast Guard, often under dangerous circumstances.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this bill which authorizes 
sufficient resources for the Coast Guard to carry out its many missions 
and make necessary improvements of laws governing maritime 
transportation.
  Mr. Chairman, I again speak about the role of the Coast Guard in the 
great State of Alaska. We have more coastline than all the United 
States combined and more Coast Guard activities, not only in the 
fisheries, but again in the oil tanker business, and in the 
interception of all types of foreign vessels that occur.

                              {time}  1545

  I can only compliment my Coast Guard contingency in Alaska for the 
work they do in adverse conditions, flying in weather that you cannot 
believe, rescuing people, fishermen, and, yes, even some tourists, 
recovering them with helicopters and with ships themselves. They have 
done yeoman's duty day after day in very adverse conditions.
  I will again stress, as one of the authors of Homeland Security, and 
I expressed at that time the Coast Guard be put at the top of the list 
in homeland security and they were, not at the bottom, which they were 
under the original proposal.
  But I am still very concerned. There is a possibility that their 
mission, which is actually navigation, safety, interdiction of drugs, 
of doing duties which this Congress made them responsible for, now 
there is sort of an emphasis on security purposes and that alone. We 
must protect and make sure that does not occur, that they have their 
mission. In fact, I will at the appropriate time, not in this 
legislation but during the coming year, make a proposal that we take 
Coast Guard out of Homeland Security, put it back where it belongs and 
make sure it can do the missions that we have charged them with.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to understand the 
importance of this legislation. We will have some amendments offered. 
We hope to work most of them out before they are offered. We will 
debate those, and we will finally pass a very good piece of legislation 
for the United States Coast Guard.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of our subcommittee, 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo); the ranking member of our 
committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); and the 
chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), for bringing us this 
legislation--and that I was proud to work on it with them. It is a 
culmination of our work this session examining the Coast Guard mission, 
with particular emphasis on the funding for the Maritime Transportation 
Security Act of 2002.
  This bill, H.R. 2443, authorizes $7.1 billion, and we hope that this 
will be sufficient funding for the Coast Guard to carry out the many 
missions that Congress has given the Coast Guard, including homeland 
security, search and rescue, marine safety, drug and migrant 
interdiction and law enforcement.
  H.R. 2443 authorizes $39 million for a squadron of what are called 
HITRON armed helicopters for the west coast. The gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) talked about return of investment on this 
bill. Well, that is true, certainly, of this HITRON helicopter. Since 
their establishment, the Jacksonville, Florida, HITRON squadron has 
stopped over $1.5 billion in illegal drugs from entering the United 
States.
  Deployment of the HITRON squadron on the west coast will help stem 
the flow of illegal narcotics through the

[[Page 27319]]

eastern Pacific Ocean. If one were to look at this using a cost-benefit 
analysis, $39 million is spent for the armored HITRON squadron on the 
west coast, but drugs that are stopped and interdicted are worth more 
than 20 times that amount.
  It is my strong view that the Coast Guard must increase Airborne Use 
of Forces assets for port security and drug interdiction. The lease 
option for these aircraft is already in place. The lease provides 
antiterrorist and antidrug coverage for the next 3 to 5 years while 
providing flexibility for the Coast Guard to engage in competition to 
select a permanent multimission cutter helicopter to meet our 
challenges post-9/11. When these multimission helicopters are deployed, 
the HITRON helicopters can be returned to their manufacturer at the 
option of the Coast Guard.
  There are a number of changes to existing law which the previous 
speakers have spoken to. I would again like to thank the members of the 
committee for their bipartisan effort to put this bill together and 
look forward to working with them as we work with the Senate to reach 
an agreement on the authorizing legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support passage of the Coast 
Guard and Maritime Transportation Act.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), former ranking member on the Subcommittee 
on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all of 
the members on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure who 
have worked to bring this bill to the floor.
  The Coast Guard has been protecting our shores for more than 200 
years, and they have done an outstanding job. The Coast Guard was the 
first agency to react to the terrorist attack on September 11 and 
within minutes was guarding our ports and bridges and directing 
maritime traffic out of New York. This Nation's ports and waterways are 
still very vulnerable to terrorist attacks, and the Coast Guard is the 
first line of defense against those wishing to harm us.
  This $7.1 billion authorization will go a long way in allowing the 
Coast Guard to continue its mission while expanding its authority to 
fight terrorists. This bill will increase the size of the Coast Guard, 
improve benefits for those serving, increase the authority to inspect 
foreign vessels, allow additional force against fleeing vessels, and 
give them the authority to revoke the credentials of individuals that 
pose a safety or security threat.
  I have major concerns when they moved the Coast Guard to the 
Department of Homeland Security because I fear that it would prevent 
them from doing their core mission of drug interdiction, search and 
rescue, enforcing maritime and fisheries laws, and protecting our 
marine environment. This bill will allow them to accomplish everything 
we ask of them, but we need to keep the Department's feet to the fire 
so they can follow the law and not reduce the Coast Guard's traditional 
mission.
  I hope that Members of this body will do the right thing and fund the 
Coast Guard at $7.1 billion. It is the right thing to do for America.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has 20 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) has 19 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers on general 
debate. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I would like to enter into a colloquy with the ranking member from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for recognizing 
the importance of implementing national maritime safety initiatives on 
our Nation's waters. In a little over a year, carriage of electronic 
technology for nonvoice chip communication that would exchange 
navigation and ship data between ships or ship and coastal stations, 
called the Automatic Identification System, will be required in certain 
vessels that operate in vessel traffic service zones.
  While I certainly understand the need to implement further navigation 
safety and maritime security on our waters, the fact is that the Coast 
Guard estimates that the cost of the AIS is over $9,300 per vessel. 
This is a considerable amount of money for small passenger vessel 
operators.
  In Michigan's first district, small island ferries and the Soo Locks 
Boat Tours operate small passenger vessels seasonally from May through 
October that have a maximum capacity of under 300 passengers per 
vessel. Although most tours and passenger services carry less than 100 
passengers per trip, my concern is how are these small governmental 
transit authorities and small mom and pop businesses in rural America 
going to be able to bear the extraordinarily high cost of AIS.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising this 
issue. It is a matter of concern to just that very class of vessel 
operator that the gentleman has described. The technology known as AIS, 
automatic identification system, is very sophisticated. It probably has 
too many bells and whistles for small operators, ones they do not need.
  The Coast Guard has come back to reconsider this issue and is working 
with the International Maritime Organization to adopt what is an 
international standard that will be far less technologically 
sophisticated, if you will, than the system they have required, which 
will give the operator e-mail and other technology downloaded from the 
signal. They do not need all of that stuff.
  What they really need for the small vessels is name, GPS position and 
bearing, where they are headed; and that is what the Coast Guard will 
do. That will draw the cost from nearly $10,000 down to $2,000 or less 
for the small vessels operators, and give them and the Coast Guard the 
information that they really need without the bells and whistles. So I 
think that this ruling will be completed by next spring, hopefully in 
time for the boating season in the gentleman's district and in mine.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for working with us 
to ensure that the costs of this technology is more conducive to small 
business. I look forward to working with him and the majority on this.
  While I have the ranking member here, I would like to ask him, and 
thank both him and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for their 
support, including my provision in the manager's amendment calling for 
the timely review and adjustment of pilotage rates by the United States 
Coast Guard.
  I would ask the gentleman if he knows anything further on this issue 
that we have raised.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the issue of pilotage rates on the Great 
Lakes is one of the most vexing matters that I have had to deal with 
going back to my service with my predecessor as the administrative 
assistant when we had so many problems with the Great Lakes Pilotage 
Administration. We once had an administrator of that agency who would 
go off to his farm in Northern Virginia over the weekends when he was 
needed most. We could not find him. They needed regulations changed or 
approvals to undertake certain activities; we could not find this guy. 
It has just been a big headache over the years. We have shifted back 
and forth between the Coast Guard and the pilotage administration and 
who is going to administer it. I think it has now been on track.
  Again, pilotage has sort of been a football kicked back and forth 
between

[[Page 27320]]

Coast Guard and DOT by the Office of Management and Budget; and in the 
process, pilots have been stiffed, to be very honest with the 
gentleman. Coast Guard first developed a rule for pilotage rates, sent 
it to the Office of Management and Budget. They reviewed it. They sent 
it back to the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard then sent it to the 
Department of Transportation because that is where they used to live. 
Now they live over in the Homeland Security Department.
  So Secretary Mineta's staff got right on it, and they worked it over 
and they said, well, we have these questions. And they asked the Coast 
Guard to answer certain questions. The Coast Guard questions were then 
sent to OMB. The OMB sent the questions back and now DOT has asked the 
Coast Guard to respond.
  Secretary Mineta has assured me that his office, his staff will clear 
the way, hopefully get it done by the end of this week so that the 
interim rate can be approved, at least on an interim basis, pending a 
final rule.
  It should not have to take this long, I assure the gentleman. I 
appreciate his advocacy on this issue. Hopefully, this will all get 
done within a week and pilots can apply their trade.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members to support the 
legislation, and I urge this committee and this Congress to continue to 
urge the Coast Guard to follow its own rules and regulation and adjust 
those pilot rates as soon as possible on the Great Lakes. The season is 
just about over. I appreciate the gentleman's concern.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the former ranking member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time. I am pleased we are taking up this bill today. For too many years 
the needs of the Coast Guard were neglected as we failed year after 
year to pass authorizing bills, and the amount of funds to the Coast 
Guard for their mission were inadequate.
  Their mission, of course, today, is even more difficult than it was 
then; but I think that this bill is beginning to recognize the need for 
more funds, the need for better housing allowances, the need of 
fulfilling that expanded mission. So I am pleased to stand in general 
support of the bill before the House.

                              {time}  1600

  I mean, the Coast Guard is crucial to my District. I represent more 
than half the Oregon coast, difficult port entrances, still an active 
fishing fleet and pleasure boats, and the Coast Guard is called upon 
many times to conduct rescues at the risk of their own life and also to 
do fisheries enforcement, drug interdiction and now, of course, the 
whole new emphasis on homeland security and all the problems in that.
  There are two issues where I would raise concerns. The first, I will 
have an amendment on later, and that is the potential that the Coast 
Guard museum, which I support the idea of a Coast Guard museum, could 
be sited on property taken by eminent domain, and I think Congress 
should speak clearly on that issue, and I will have an amendment on 
that later.
  The other is something I have raised with the Commandant in hearings, 
and it is just a general note of concern to other Members of Congress. 
I feel that the Coast Guard is doing an excellent job in its mission of 
homeland security, but the one place where I would fault them is as our 
lead negotiator with the International Maritime Organization.
  The International Maritime Organization works by consensus, and often 
I feel rather than us setting down a hard marker and saying, this is 
where the rest of the world has to go on shipping, crew certification 
and safety issues, the Coast Guard gets much too involved in 
bargaining. We should lead by example with world standards. It is not 
enough to say, well, we always have port/State control issues where we 
can board these ships once they get here. No, we do not want those 
ships on the ocean at all. We do not want ships out there where we do 
not know who the owners are. We do not want ships out there where we do 
not know who the crews are, and we do not want ships out there when we 
do not know what the cargoes are.
  Those are extraordinary threats both to the safety, the environment 
as with the New Carissa incident in my district. We had a totally 
incompetent foreign skipper, who did everything in defiance of good 
practice and managed to put his ship on the beach, spilling a 
tremendous amount of bunker fuel, causing an environmental disaster, 
and the ship is still there. He skipped out of the country before we 
could put him in jail unfortunately, but I do not think he will be 
coming back, but there are other skippers like that out there, not to 
say there are not many good ones.
  But we need better crew certification requirements. We cannot have 
these paper schools that issue certificates. That is what we have got 
today. We are allowing to say, well, these schools exist in the 
Philippines. There is no one that goes around to certify that the 
schools exist, certify the curriculum, certify people have gone through 
the curriculum. We do not know who the crew members are. We do not have 
noncounterfeitable ID cards. We do not have a way of knowing better 
what the cargo is.
  The Coast Guard is just starting to work on these things, and they 
are not taking the toughest position they could in the International 
Maritime Organization to secure our borders, our security and our 
safety, and I just want to urge them to redouble their efforts and set 
a higher standard to protect the homeland of the United States of 
America.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, how much time, may I inquire, do we 
have left?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar) has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) guardian of the Jones Act.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, if I could, I would like 
to engage in a colloquy with either the subcommittee or full committee 
chairman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I gladly will accept a colloquy 
with the good gentleman.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, for the sake of the folks who 
do not know it, I am pleased to mention that the full committee 
chairman owns his own commercial license as a tugboat captain, so I 
think he will appreciate this question.
  In reading the synopsis, it says the measure requires foreign flagged 
vessels that depart and return to the same U.S. port without stopping 
at any other port in between to comply with the safety requirements of 
the International Safety Management Code whenever any part of the 
voyage occurs in international waters.
  For the folks around here, that would be called a cruise to nowhere. 
As the chairman knows better than most, there really is not a law that 
allows cruises to nowhere. It is a Customs ruling going back to about 
the 1950s, and it has been used by foreign-owned, foreign-manned and 
foreign-built ships to operate in the U.S. trade. They merely go 12 
miles out to sea, turn around and come back.
  One of the few things that I thought we had protecting Americans from 
this glaring loophole in the law was that the Coast Guard at least had 
to inspect these vessels. If I understand this properly, and this is a 
colloquy, and I am asking for an answer and, hopefully, something that 
will stick up in law, I hope by doing this we are not taking a bad 
Customs ruling and making it the law of the land. A bad Customs ruling 
we can fix with good administration. I have not had one to do so in the 
three that I have dealt with, but we could still fix with a good 
administration.
  If this becomes the law of the land, and that is why I am asking for 
my colleague's opinion, then we have, in effect, taken a bad practice 
and made it the law of the land.

[[Page 27321]]


  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, my 
concern is that we were going to have another colloquy on something 
else that is very dear to your heart.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I am going to get to that one next.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I cannot specifically answer the 
gentleman's question at this time. It is my intent to make sure the 
vessels, whatever vessels operate in these waters, will be under Coast 
Guard jurisdiction, and I think that is what the intent of this is. It 
is my intent, personally, as chairman.
  The gentleman brings up a point about a Customs ruling that can be 
changed. I do not intend to do anything. As my colleague knows, I 
support the Jones Act equally as he does, and we will be reviewing 
this, and I am willing to work with the gentleman as this legislation 
goes forward to see if we cannot make sure that his and my ideas are 
implemented because I am not going to get involved right now with the 
trips to nowhere because I do not know the effect of this legislation 
on those activities at this time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, if I may ask this 
question, is it the intent of this legislation to legalize cruises to 
nowhere?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. To my knowledge, no, and if that is the case, we 
will be taking care of that as time goes by. I was unaware of it. If 
that does this, we will be looking at it very closely.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Second question, again coming from the 
synopsis, and I know it is not perfect, but it says the bill would 
authorize two U.S.-built, -owned and -flagged vessels to enter into the 
U.S. coastwise trades.
  My question is, it has been highly publicized in the New York Times 
and other publications that through the unintended consequences, and I 
do mean unintended consequences, of the foreign lease provisions in the 
1996 Coast Guard authorization bill that some of these U.S.-owned 
corporations are actually chartering out of the Bahamas and, therefore, 
totally avoiding their U.S. tax obligations for vessels that are 
protected by the Coast Guard, for vessels that use channels that are 
dredged by the Army Corps of Engineers and God forbid if the vessel is 
seized by terrorists. That owner would never hesitate to call upon the 
U.S. Navy Seals to go rescue his vessel.
  My question is, do these two vessels fall into that category of being 
owned by a corporation that has already inverted overseas in order to 
avoid U.S. taxes?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. No, and I believe if the gentleman is talking 
about the M/V Coastal, which vessels is the gentleman talking about?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Again, the synopsis says two, does not 
have the names, just says two U.S.-built, -owned and -flagged vessels.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman is referring to 
page 35, the Bluefin and the M/V Coastal Merchant, I do believe this 
applies as long as it is retroactive. We do not go back and disown 
them. We have to probably allow them to continue to operate as 
American-flagged vessels, these two vessels. There are only two vessels 
mentioned in the bill.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Again, my fear is this is an 
interpretation that we might actually be putting into law, and I hate 
to be doing that, and I do not think that is my colleague's intention 
as well.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I can assure the gentleman that 
it is not my intent to do so at this time. That is why we will have the 
committee to review it, but if these vessels were actually authorized 
and they were done under a law of 1976 I believe it is, then we cannot 
make it say, no, they are no longer eligible.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, does the gentleman have further 
speakers?
  Mr. LoBIONDO. We are reserving the balance of our time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman, my friend from 
Minnesota, for recognizing me, and I rise in support of the manager's 
amendment that will be offered later, and I want to thank the gentleman 
from Alaska (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking 
Member Oberstar), the gentleman from New Jersey (Subcommittee Chairman 
LoBiondo) and the gentleman from California (Ranking Member Filner) for 
their support of my amendment which they have included as part of the 
manager's amendment.
  I also rise in support of the overall bill. The Coast Guard is a 
vital part of our national security. We must provide them with the 
tools they need and the funding to successfully execute their mission. 
I am especially pleased with the funding for the Integrated Deepwater 
Systems program.
  Madam Chairman, I offer my amendment because I continue to have grave 
concerns about the safety of my constituents should the Indian Point 
nuclear power plant be attacked. I am concerned about the safety and 
security of the plant. I have even more concerns about the ability to 
evacuate people safely, but that is for another debate.
  This amendment is simple. It requires that the Coast Guard conduct a 
vulnerability assessment of the facility. As of January 1, 2003, the 
Coast Guard had established a permanent safety and security zone around 
Indian Point. However, the Coast Guard's Hudson River cutter passes 
Indian Point about twice a week, and its copter only about three times 
a week.
  Indian Point is located in Buchanan, New York, 35 miles north of 
midtown Manhattan and just a few miles northeast of my district. Almost 
all of my district is located within the 10-mile radius of the plant, 
and approximately 20 million people live within the 50-mile emergency 
planning zone or EPZ.
  In addition, as we know, blueprints for American nuclear power plants 
were found in al Qaeda caves in Afghanistan, and that point bears 
repeating. Al Qaeda has the plans to some U.S. nuclear power plants.
  A study conducted by the Marist Institute found that 82 percent of 
people living within a 50-mile radius of the plant are concerned about 
a potential terrorist attack on the facility, moreover, a majority of 
residents in the 50-mile radius do not feel that the plant is secure 
and protected against a terrorist attack.
  I support closing Indian Point completely. Absent that solution, I am 
working with my colleagues to ensure that it is the most safe and 
secure nuclear power plant possible.
  Therefore, I urge all my colleagues to support the manager's 
amendment and the bill.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) 
has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Yesterday, the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime 
Transportation conducted a hearing on the Staten Island ferry accident 
in which 10 passengers were killed. Even at this date, the captain and 
the pilot of the ferry claim to be too ill to testify before the 
National Transportation Safety Board. The Coast Guard can take no 
action against them because they are incompetent or a danger to the 
safety of a vessel because of their statements and because of a 
loophole in existing law.
  The bill that the committee has reported includes a provision 
recommended wisely and appropriately by the administration to close 
that loophole. It does not give the Coast Guard authority to go on 
fishing expeditions to look at the health records of a mariner, but it 
does what I have long advocated, provide the Coast Guard authority that 
the FAA has, to require all mariners that are on medication or have 
illnesses that could affect their ability to operate a vessel safely, 
to report those circumstances to the Coast Guard so they can determine 
whether the individual can operate safely.
  Enactment of this legislation is going to close a very troublesome 
loophole in existing law and result in far better safety on the waters 
as we have an obligation to provide and should undertake, and I thank 
the chairman for recognizing that circumstance. I know

[[Page 27322]]

the chairman has been under enormous pressure, to put it mildly, 
advocacy, to do something differently, but at the hearing yesterday it 
became apparent why we need to proceed with the language in the bill, 
which I strongly support.
  Let me conclude by saying, we have an outstanding bill. We have an 
excellent piece of work.

                              {time}  1615

  I wish we were doing more in personnel and more in funding for the 
Coast Guard, but I think we have done all we can under the 
circumstances; and we will continue to work to improve those two areas, 
personnel and funding, for the Coast Guard in the future.
  Mr. PETRI. Madam Chairman, I applaud the vision of the Chairman of 
the Subcommittee and the Ranking Minority Member in recommending 
additional helicopter assets to be deployed on the West Coast for drug 
interdiction and port security. Currently, there are eight leased, 
armed helicopters based in Jacksonville, FL, which make up the entire 
Coast Guard Airborne Use of Force capability. Pre 9-11, this Helicopter 
Interdiction Tactical Squadron (or HITRON) was used solely for drug 
interdiction, primarily in the Caribbean. Occasionally, some or all of 
the fleet was sent to the West Coast since about 50 percent of the drug 
interdiction has occurred in the eastern Pacific. Post 9-11, insofar as 
possible, these same eight armed helicopters have also assumed port and 
inland waterway security duties.
  Lakes Michigan and Superior form part of the Wisconsin border. 
Currently the air stations at Travers City, Michigan, and Detroit 
monitor the Great Lakes from Niagara Falls through Lake Superior. They 
are already stretched very thinly. To meet increased terrorist threats 
wherever they occur, the Coast Guard must rob Peter to pay Paul. The 
humanitarian aspect of the Coast Guard's mission is a constant, so it 
is imperative that they obtain more assets--ships, fixed wing and 
rotary wing aircraft.
  Since their introduction into the Coast Guard Inventory many years 
ago, the role of helicopters has expanded. They had primarily been used 
for search and rescue missions at sea until the introduction of the 
lighter, armed Sting Rays. Beginning with the introduction of the Sting 
Rays in 2000, they have deployed as a cutter-based aircraft to pursue, 
intercept and disable ``go-fast'' boats engaged in drug running. To 
date, they have intercepted over 30 Tons of illegal drugs valued at 
more than $2.1 billion. There are just not enough of them to go around!
  The Coast Guard motto is Semper Paratus--Always Prepared. As stated 
on their web site, they are The Shield of Freedom; The Defender of the 
Homeland; The Port in the Storm and The Enforcer of the Sea. They are 
indeed all those things and always have been. However, since 9-11, all 
those things have taken on added significance. To accomplish these 
missions, they need more assets to meet the increased burden.
  Mr. STUPAK. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank Committee Chairman 
Young and Ranking Member Oberstar for their support in including my 
provision in the Managers amendment calling for the timely review and 
adjustment of pilotage rates by the United States Coast Guard.
  Every foreign vessel that enters the Great Lakes must secure the 
services of a ship pilot, whose primary responsibility is the safe 
navigation of the vessel. The rates that American pilots charge 
shipping companies for pilotage services are set by the Coast Guard.
  The Great Lakes pilotage system performs a critical safety and 
environmental protection function for the Great Lakes. It doesn't make 
sense to underfund a pilotage system that is crucial to the largest 
freshwater body in the world. Yet the Coast Guard failed to complete a 
rate adjustment of any kind last year. At the beginning of this year it 
announced that it intended to establish a new rate in time for the 
beginning of the 2003 shipping season yet with the shipping season now 
over, that still has not occurred.
  The Coast Guard continues to set funding levels for key elements of 
the pilotage system at 1997 and even 1995 levels. This is particularly 
disturbing because the Coast Guard regulations require rates to be 
reviewed and adjusted on an annual basis. Setting rates to 1997 or 1995 
levels will inevitably result in the fraying of the Great Lakes 
piloting system.
  It has been reported that the delay of any rate adjustment is a 
result of objections from foreign shipping companies, which pay for 
pilot services. I have made the protection of the Great Lakes a crusade 
throughout my years in Congress. My Congressional District is 
surrounded by three Great Lakes. I would object in the strongest 
possible terms if the Coast Guard is placing the bottom lines of 
foreign shipping companies ahead of adequate funding for a pilotage 
system that is designated to protect the Great Lakes. The Coast Guard 
should not put the economic interests of a few foreign shipping 
companies ahead of the safety of the Great Lakes.
  I urge the Coast Guard to follow its own regulations and adjust 
pilotage rates on the Great Lakes as soon as possible. Until they do so 
it places the entire Great Lakes in jeopardy.
  I urge all members to support.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Madam Chairman, I rise to express my strong 
support for the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act (H.R. 
2443).
  Specifically, I want to thank the chairman and Ranking Member Filner 
for including my amendment in the manager's amendment.
  My amendment will provide the Department of Homeland Security the 
authority to issue port security grants, by amending the Maritime 
Transportation Security Act.
  This is a simple act, but I believe it will go a long way in 
clarifying the responsibility of issuing port security grants in a 
timely, predictable and efficient manner.
  In November 2002, when the Maritime Transportation Security Act 
passed this House, the Department of Homeland Security had not yet been 
created.
  Since the beginning of the 108th Congress we have worked to iron out 
the kinks that go with creating a new federal agency such as the 
Department of Homeland Security. This is, yet, another wrinkle that I 
hope has been ironed out.
  As a representative from Long Beach, the home of the largest port 
complex in the country and third largest port complex in the world, we 
in southern California, as well as other port cities around the 
country, want to know where the responsibility for issuing port 
security grants lies.
  By clarifying the authority of issuing port security grants it is my 
hope that we can begin to define the federal role in port security.
  Specifically, from this point on, we need to provide more funding for 
port security and we need to establish a dedicated stream of funding 
for port security.
  Finally, I believe, for the large port security projects, we need to 
provide the authority for multi-year grants so that our ports and local 
governments can adequately plan to build their new projects.
  In closing I want to reiterate my support for this bill and look 
forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on the committee on 
these very important issues.
  Ms. HARMAN. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Coast Guard and 
Maritime Transportation Act of 2004.
  As the former representative of the Port of Los Angeles, and 
currently the representative of the communities neighboring the Port, I 
know the critical role the Coast Guard plays in protecting the nation's 
ports and sea-borne commerce.
  Indeed, even before the events of September 11, the women and men of 
the Coast Guard worked tirelessly to ensure safe and secure operations 
in and around the Port of Los Angeles and Santa Monica Bay. Since that 
date, the role of the Coast Guard has increased in pace and intensity.
  The bill before us recognizes the operational tempo of the Coast 
Guard and helps ensure that it has the assets and personnel to do its 
critical job.
  I also want to point out the bill's endorsement of the Marine 
Exchange of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Since 1923, the Marine Exchange 
has maintained a continuous 24-hour operation providing detailed 
records of all vessel arrivals and departures of the busiest habor 
complex in America. Jointly with Coast Guard, the Marine Exchange 
operates a Vessel Traffic Information Service. This program uses state 
of the art electronic tracking equipment and radar and radio systems to 
manage all commercial vessels that travel through San Pedro Bay. The 
Marine Exchange VTS is the first public-private VTS partnership 
operation in the country that is funded by industry.
  This bill notes that it is a national model for other ports to study, 
evaluate, and emulate and authorizes the Coast Guard to enter into 
similar cooperative agreements elsewhere in the nation. The VTS keeps 
the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach safe, more efficient, and 
environmentally protected by assisting with the movement of over 35,000 
vessel transits annually and I commend its executive director, Capt. 
M.H.K. ``Manny'' Aschemeyer, and all those associated with the Marine 
Exchange for a job well done.
  Lastly, I want to express my gratitude to the Chairman and Ranking 
Member for including in the manager's amendment a proposal first

[[Page 27323]]

suggested to me by the City Council of Torrance, California. That 
proposal recognizes the linkage between the critically important roles 
of both the Coast Guard and the nation's cities in the fight against 
terrorism and recommends the Coast Guard name a class of vessels in its 
Deepwater program in honor of specific U.S. cities.
  It is my hope that the Coast Guard will respond favorably to the 
sense of Congress language included in the bill and, in fact, name one 
of its new ships in honor of the city of Torrance, which has been on 
the forefront of honoring our Armed Forces and is strategically located 
on the shore of the Pacific Ocean.
  Madam Chairman, I urge passage of the Coast Guard and Maritime 
Transportation Act.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2443, the 
Coast Guard and Marine Transportation Act of 2003.
  This legislation highlights the need to expand our Coast Guard 
aviation assets to fight the war against drugs. I strongly support the 
provision in this measure which permits the Coast Guard to establish a 
West Coast fleet of HITRON drug interdiction helicopters. This 
provision will afford the Coast Guard the opportunity to select a new 
state-of-the-art, multi-mission helicopter to assist in its drug 
interdiction efforts.
  The HITRON MH-68A Sting Ray was designed, built, and maintained by 
the Agusta Aerospace facility in Philadelphia. Constructed on the frame 
of an A109E Power civilian helicopter, the Sting Ray employs state-of-
the-art navigation, communication, and avionics equipment.
  In 2000, eight Sting Rays were leased to the Coast Guard for the 
purpose of establishing an armed HITRON Squadron in Jacksonville, 
specifically for drug interdiction efforts. This Fleet has enjoyed a 
fabulous success rate in its missions.
  HITRON aircrews have interdicted 30 tons of illegal drugs on the high 
seas valued at more than $2.1 billion. In addition, the Sting Ray is 
the only Homeland Security helicopter authorized for airborne use of 
force over civilian populations. Since September 11, the Sting Rays 
have also been pressed into port security service for all U.S. ports 
and associated waterways.
  Therefore, I am pleased to support H.R. 2443 which accommodates the 
leasing and stationing of six HITRON helicopters in Southern 
California. The failure to establish a permanent West Coast Fleet will 
result in a serious shortage of armed assets for drug interdiction and 
homeland defense.
  Thank you for your consideration of this important piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). All time for general debate 
has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment, and is considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 2443

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be referred to as the ``Coast Guard and 
     Maritime Transportation Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

                         TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION

Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 102. Authorized levels of military strength and training.

                    TITLE II--COAST GUARD MANAGEMENT

Sec. 201. Long-term leases.
Sec. 202. Nonappropriated fund instrumentalities.
Sec. 203. Term of enlistments.
Sec. 204. Enlisted member critical skill training bonus.
Sec. 205. Enhancement of Coast Guard authority to stop vessels liable 
              to seizure or examination.
Sec. 206. Administrative, collection, and enforcement costs for certain 
              fees and charges.
Sec. 207. Expansion of Coast Guard housing authorities.
Sec. 208. Requirement for constructive credit.
Sec. 209. Maximum age for retention in an active status.
Sec. 210. Payments.
Sec. 211. Coast Guard fellowship program.
Sec. 212. Air search and rescue facility in Muskegon County, Michigan.
Sec. 213. National Coast Guard Museum.
Sec. 214. Limitation on number of commissioned officers.
Sec. 215. Redistricting notification requirement.

                         TITLE III--NAVIGATION

Sec. 301. Marking of underwater wrecks.
Sec. 302. Use of electronic devices; cooperative agreements.
Sec. 303. Inland navigation rules promulgation authority.

                           TITLE IV--SHIPPING

Sec. 401. Reports from charterers.
Sec. 402. Suspension of documents in lieu of mandatory revocation for 
              proved drug convictions.
Sec. 403. Inspection of records of merchant mariners' documents.
Sec. 404. Exemption of unmanned barges from citizenship requirements 
              regarding command of vessel.
Sec. 405. Administrative, collection, and enforcement costs for certain 
              fees and charges.
Sec. 406. Compliance with International Safety Management Code.
Sec. 407. Civil penalties for failure to comply with recreational 
              vessel and associated equipment safety standards.
Sec. 408. Revision of temporary suspension criteria in document 
              suspension and revocation cases.
Sec. 409. Revision of bases for document suspension and revocation 
              cases.
Sec. 410. Hours of service on towing vessels.
Sec. 411. Automatic identification system electronic charts.
Sec. 412. Prevention of departure.

                  TITLE V--FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Sec. 501. Authorization of appropriations for Federal Maritime 
              Commission.

                        TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 601. Increase in civil penalties for violations of certain bridge 
              statutes.
Sec. 602. Conveyance of decommissioned Coast Guard Cutter SUNDEW.
Sec. 603. Tonnage measurement.
Sec. 604. Operation of vessel STAD AMSTERDAM.
Sec. 605. Great Lakes National Maritime Enhancement Institute.
Sec. 606. Agile Port and Intelligent Border Security National 
              Demonstration Project.
Sec. 607. Koss Cove.
Sec. 608. Miscellaneous certificates of documentation.
Sec. 609. Dredging study.
Sec. 610.  Report regarding security inspection of vessels and vessel-
              borne cargo containers entering the United States.

      TITLE VII--AMENDMENTS RELATING TO OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990

Sec. 701. Vessel response plans for nontank vessels over 400 gross 
              tons.
Sec. 702. Requirements for tank level and pressure monitoring devices.
Sec. 703. Liability and cost recovery.

                         TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Operations and Capital Acquisitions.--
       (1) In general.--Funds are authorized to be appropriated 
     for fiscal year 2004 for necessary expenses of the Coast 
     Guard as follows:
       (A) Operating expenses.--For the operating expenses of the 
     Coast Guard, $4,996,000,000, of which--
       (i) $4,979,000,000 is for operation and maintenance of the 
     Coast Guard; and
       (ii) $17,000,000 is for environmental compliance and 
     restoration at Coast Guard facilities (other than parts and 
     equipment associated with operations and maintenance).
       (B) Capital acquisitions.--For the capital acquisitions of 
     the Coast Guard, $1,097,000,000, of which--
       (i) $355,000,000 is for acquisition, construction, 
     rebuilding, and improvement of aids to navigation, shore and 
     offshore facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including 
     equipment related thereto;
       (ii) $702,000,000 is for acquisition and construction of 
     shore and offshore facilities, vessels, and aircraft, 
     including equipment related thereto, and other activities 
     that constitute the Integrated Deepwater Systems program;
       (iii) $22,000,000 is for research, development, test, and 
     evaluation of technologies, materials, and human factors 
     directly relating to improving the performance of the Coast 
     Guard's mission in support of search and rescue, aids to 
     navigation, marine safety, marine environmental protection, 
     enforcement of laws and treaties, ice operations, 
     oceanographic research, and defense readiness; and
       (iv) $18,000,000 is for the alteration or removal of 
     bridges over navigable waters of the United States 
     constituting obstructions to navigation, and for personnel 
     and administrative costs associated with the Bridge 
     Alteration Program.
       (2) Source of funds.--
       (A) Operating expenses.--Of the amount authorized in 
     paragraph (1)(A), $25,000,000 is authorized to be derived 
     from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the 
     purposes of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 
     1990.
       (B) Capital acquisitions.--Of the amounts authorized by 
     paragraph (1)(B)--
       (i) $20,000,000 is authorized to be derived from the Oil 
     Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of 
     section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990; and
       (ii) $3,500,000 is authorized to be derived each fiscal 
     year from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the 
     purposes of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 
     1990.
       (b) Retired Pay.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     for Coast Guard retired pay (including the payment of 
     obligations otherwise

[[Page 27324]]

     chargeable to lapsed appropriations for this purpose), 
     payments with respect to the Coast Guard under the Retired 
     Serviceman's Family Protection and Survivor Benefit Plans, 
     and payments for medical care of retired Coast Guard 
     personnel and their dependents under chapter 55 of title 10, 
     United States Code, $1,020,000,000.

     SEC. 102. AUTHORIZED LEVELS OF MILITARY STRENGTH AND 
                   TRAINING.

       (a) Active Duty Strength.--The Coast Guard is authorized an 
     end-of-year strength for active duty personnel of 45,500 as 
     of September 30, 2004.
       (b) Military Training Student Loads.--The Coast Guard is 
     authorized average military training student loads as 
     follows:
       (1) For recruit and special training for fiscal year 2004, 
     2,500 student years.
       (2) For flight training for fiscal year 2004, 125 student 
     years.
       (3) For professional training in military and civilian 
     institutions for fiscal year 2004, 350 student years.
       (4) For officer acquisition for fiscal year 2004, 1,200 
     student years.

                    TITLE II--COAST GUARD MANAGEMENT

     SEC. 201. LONG-TERM LEASES.

       Section 93 of title 14, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (a) through (x) in order as 
     paragraphs (1) through (23);
       (2) in paragraph (18) (as so redesignated) by striking the 
     comma at the end and inserting a semicolon;
       (3) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``For the purpose''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a)(14), a lease 
     described in paragraph (2) of this subsection may be for a 
     term of up to 20 years.
       ``(2) A lease referred to in paragraph (1) is a lease--
       ``(A) to the United States Coast Guard Academy Alumni 
     Association for the construction of an Alumni Center on the 
     grounds of the United States Coast Guard Academy; or
       ``(B) to an entity with which the Commandant has a 
     cooperative agreement under section 4(e) of the Ports and 
     Waterways Safety Act, and for which a term longer than 5 
     years is necessary to carry out the agreement.''.

     SEC. 202. NONAPPROPRIATED FUND INSTRUMENTALITIES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 7 of title 14, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 152. Nonappropriated fund instrumentalities: contracts 
       with other agencies and instrumentalities to provide or 
       obtain goods and services

       ``The Coast Guard Exchange System, or a morale, welfare, 
     and recreation system of the Coast Guard, may enter into a 
     contract or other agreement with any element or 
     instrumentality of the Coast Guard or with another Federal 
     department, agency, or instrumentality to provide or obtain 
     goods and services beneficial to the efficient management and 
     operation of the Coast Guard Exchange System or that morale, 
     welfare, and recreation system.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 7 of title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``152. Nonappropriated fund instrumentalities: contracts with other 
              agencies and instrumentalities to provide or obtain goods 
              and services.''.

     SEC. 203. TERM OF ENLISTMENTS.

       Section 351(a) of title 14, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``terms of full years not exceeding six years.'' 
     and inserting ``a period of at least two years but not more 
     than six years.''.

     SEC. 204. ENLISTED MEMBER CRITICAL SKILL TRAINING BONUS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 11 of title 14, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 373 the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 374. Critical skill training bonus

       ``(a) The Secretary may provide a bonus, not to exceed 
     $20,000, to an enlisted member who completes training in a 
     skill designated as critical, if at least four years of 
     obligated active service remain on the member's enlistment at 
     the time the training is completed. A bonus under this 
     section may be paid in a single lump sum or in periodic 
     installments.
       ``(b) If an enlisted member voluntarily or because of 
     misconduct does not complete the member's term of obligated 
     active service, the Secretary may require the member to repay 
     the United States, on a pro rata basis, all sums paid under 
     this section. The Secretary may charge interest on the amount 
     repaid at a rate, to be determined quarterly, equal to 150 
     percent of the average of the yields on the 91-day Treasury 
     bills auctioned during the calendar quarter preceding the 
     date on which the amount to be repaid is determined.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 11 of title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting the following after the item relating to 
     section 373:

``374. Critical skill training bonus.''.

     SEC. 205. ENHANCEMENT OF COAST GUARD AUTHORITY TO STOP 
                   VESSELS LIABLE TO SEIZURE OR EXAMINATION.

       (a) Repeal of Requirement To Fire Warning Shot.--Subsection 
     (a) of section 637 of title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)'';
       (2) by striking ``after a'' and all that follows through 
     ``signal,'' and inserting ``subject to paragraph (2),''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Before firing at or into a vessel as authorized in 
     paragraph (1), the person in command or in charge of the 
     authorized vessel or authorized aircraft shall fire a gun as 
     a warning signal, except that the prior firing of a gun as a 
     warning signal is not required if that person determines that 
     the firing of a warning signal would unreasonably endanger 
     persons or property in the vicinity of the vessel to be 
     stopped.''.
       (b) Extension to Military Aircraft of Coast Guard 
     Interdiction Authority.--Subsection (c) of such section is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by inserting ``or'' after the 
     semicolon; and
       (2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``; or'' and all that 
     follows through paragraph (3) and inserting a period.
       (c) Repeal of Termination of Applicability to Naval 
     Aircraft.--Subsection (d) of such section is repealed.

     SEC. 206. ADMINISTRATIVE, COLLECTION, AND ENFORCEMENT COSTS 
                   FOR CERTAIN FEES AND CHARGES.

       Section 664 of title 14, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (f);
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) In addition to the collection of fees and charges 
     established under this section, the Secretary may recover 
     from the person liable for the fee or charge the costs of 
     collecting delinquent payments of the fee or charge, and 
     enforcement costs associated with delinquent payments of the 
     fees and charges.
       ``(d)(1) The Secretary may employ any Federal, State, or 
     local agency or instrumentality, or any private enterprise or 
     business, to collect a fee or charge established under this 
     section.
       ``(2) A private enterprise or business employed by the 
     Secretary to collect fees or charges--
       ``(A) shall be subject to reasonable terms and conditions 
     agreed to by the Secretary and the enterprise or business;
       ``(B) shall provide appropriate accounting to the 
     Secretary; and
       ``(C) may not institute litigation as part of that 
     collection.
       ``(e) The Secretary shall account for the agency's costs of 
     collecting a fee or charge as a reimbursable expense, and the 
     costs shall be credited to the account from which 
     expended.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) In this section the term `costs of collecting a fee 
     or charge' includes the reasonable administrative, 
     accounting, personnel, contract, equipment, supply, training, 
     and travel expenses of calculating, assessing, collecting, 
     enforcing, reviewing, adjusting, and reporting on a fee or 
     charge.''.

     SEC. 207. EXPANSION OF COAST GUARD HOUSING AUTHORITIES.

       (a) Eligible Entity Defined.--Section 680 of title 14, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) in order as 
     paragraphs (4) and (5); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) The term `eligible entity' means any private person, 
     corporation, firm, partnership, or company and any State or 
     local government or housing authority of a State or local 
     government.''.
       (b) Direct Loans for Providing Housing.--Section 682 of 
     title 14, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the section heading by striking ``Loan guarantees'' 
     and inserting ``Direct loans and loan guarantees'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (a) and (b) as (b) and (c) 
     respectively;
       (3) by inserting before subsection (b) (as so redesignated) 
     the following:
       ``(a) Direct Loans.--(1) Subject to subsection (c), the 
     Secretary may make direct loans to an eligible entity in 
     order to provide funds to the eligible entity for the 
     acquisition or construction of housing units that the 
     Secretary determines are suitable for use as military family 
     housing or as military unaccompanied housing.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall establish such terms and 
     conditions with respect to loans made under this subsection 
     as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the 
     interests of the United States, including the period and 
     frequency for repayment of such loans and the obligations of 
     the obligors on such loans upon default.'';
       (4) in subsection (b) (as so redesignated) by striking 
     ``subsection (b),'' and inserting ``subsection (c),''; and
       (5) in subsection (c) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) in the heading by striking ``Guarantee''; and
       (B) by striking ``Loan guarantees'' and inserting ``Direct 
     loans and loan guarantees''.
       (c) Limited Partnerships With Eligible Entities.--Section 
     684 of title 14, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the section heading by striking ``NONGOVERNMENTAL'' 
     and inserting ``ELIGIBLE'';
       (2) in subsection (a) by striking ``nongovernmental'' and 
     inserting ``eligible'';
       (3) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``a nongovernmental'' 
     and inserting ``an eligible'';
       (4) in subsection (b)(2) by striking ``a nongovernmental'' 
     and inserting ``an eligible''; and
       (5) in subsection (c) by striking ``nongovernmental'' and 
     inserting ``eligible''.
       (d) Housing Demonstration Projects in Alaska.--Section 
     687(g) of title 14, United Sates Code, is amended--
       (1) in the heading by striking ``Project'' and inserting 
     ``Projects'';
       (2) in paragraph (1) by striking ``a demonstration 
     project'' and inserting ``demonstration projects'';

[[Page 27325]]

       (3) in paragraph (1) by striking ``Kodiak, Alaska;'' and 
     inserting ``Kodiak, Alaska, or any other Coast Guard 
     installation in Alaska;'';
       (4) in paragraph (2) by striking ``the demonstration 
     project'' and inserting ``such a demonstration project''; and
       (5) in paragraph (4) by striking ``the demonstration 
     project'' and inserting ``such demonstration projects''.
       (e) Differential Lease Payments.--Chapter 18 of title 14, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 687 
     the following:

     ``Sec. 687a. Differential lease payments

       ``Pursuant to an agreement entered into by the Secretary 
     and a lessor of military family housing or military 
     unaccompanied housing to members of the armed forces, the 
     Secretary may pay the lessor an amount, in addition to the 
     rental payments for the housing made by the members, as the 
     Secretary determines appropriate to encourage the lessor to 
     make the housing available to members of the armed forces as 
     military family housing or as military unaccompanied 
     housing.''.
       (f) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 18 of title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking the item related to section 682 and 
     inserting the following:

``682. Direct loans and loan guarantees.'';

       (2) in the item related to section 684 by striking 
     ``nongovernmental'' and inserting ``eligible''; and
       (3) by inserting after the item related to section 687 the 
     following:

``687a. Differential lease payments.''.

     SEC. 208. REQUIREMENT FOR CONSTRUCTIVE CREDIT.

       Section 727 of title 14, United States Code, is amended in 
     the second sentence by striking ``three years'' and inserting 
     ``one year''.

     SEC. 209. MAXIMUM AGE FOR RETENTION IN AN ACTIVE STATUS.

       Section 742 of title 14, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``sixty-two'' and 
     inserting ``60''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``sixty-two'' and 
     inserting ``60''.

     SEC. 210. PAYMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 13 of title 14, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 517. Payments

       ``(a) The Secretary may require that travel or 
     transportation allowances due a civilian employee or military 
     member of the Coast Guard be disbursed directly to the issuer 
     of a Federal contractor-issued travel charge card, but only 
     in an amount not to exceed the authorized travel expenses 
     charged by that Coast Guard member to that travel charge card 
     issued to that employee or member.
       ``(b) The Secretary may also establish requirements similar 
     to those established by the Secretary of Defense pursuant to 
     section 2784a of title 10 for deduction or withholding of pay 
     or retired pay from a Coast Guard employee, member, or 
     retired member who is delinquent in payment under the terms 
     of the contract under which the card was issued and does not 
     dispute the amount of the delinquency.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 13 of title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``517. Payments.''.

     SEC. 211. COAST GUARD FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--Title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end of chapter 11 the following:

     ``Sec. 337. Coast Guard Congressional Fellowship Program

       ``(a) There is established in the Coast Guard a Coast Guard 
     Congressional Fellowship Program to broaden Coast Guard 
     officers' knowledge of the Congress.
       ``(b) The Commandant may appoint 4 mid-grade officers as 
     fellows under the program, subject to the following 
     limitations:
       ``(1) The maximum length of a fellowship is one year.
       ``(2) A fellow may be assigned to an office of the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate, including a committee, during 
     the period of the fellowship, or may rotate between such 
     offices.
       ``(3) To protect against abuses of separation of powers 
     principles and conflicts of interest, a fellow may not engage 
     in duties that will result in any direct or indirect benefit 
     to the Coast Guard, other than broadening the fellow's 
     knowledge.
       ``(c) An individual violating this section is subject to 
     appropriate discipline by the Commandant.''.
       (b) Limitation on Application.--Section 337(b)(1) of title 
     14, United States Code, as amended by this section, does not 
     apply to an individual serving on June 10, 2003, as a Coast 
     Guard congressional fellow.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 11 of title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 336 
     the following:

``337. Coast Guard Congressional Fellowship Program.''.

     SEC. 212. AIR SEARCH AND RESCUE FACILITY IN MUSKEGON COUNTY, 
                   MICHIGAN.

       (a) Lease Authority.--The Commandant may enter into a long-
     term lease for a period of up to 20 years with Muskegon 
     County, Michigan, for use of a facility constructed by the 
     County at Muskegon County Airport as an air search and rescue 
     station, if such a facility that meets criteria established 
     under subsection (b) is available.
       (b) Criteria.--Any facility leased under subsection (a) 
     must meet criteria established by the Commandant.

     SEC. 213. NATIONAL COAST GUARD MUSEUM.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 14, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 98. National Coast Guard Museum

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Commandant of the Coast Guard 
     may, subject to subsections (b) and (c), establish a National 
     Coast Guard Museum on Federal lands that are administered by 
     the Coast Guard and specified by the Commandant.
       ``(b) Location.--The National Coast Guard Museum may be 
     located at, or in close proximity to, the Coast Guard Academy 
     in New London, Connecticut.
       ``(c) Limitation on Expenditures.--The Secretary of the 
     Department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall not 
     expend any Federal funds for the planning, engineering, 
     design, construction, operation, or maintenance of any museum 
     established under subsection (a).
       ``(d) Operation and Maintenance Plan.--Before the date on 
     which the Commandant establishes a museum under subsection 
     (a), the Commandant shall provide to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives a plan for operating and maintaining such a 
     museum, including--
       ``(1) estimated operation and maintenance costs;
       ``(2) proposed sources of operation and maintenance funds; 
     and
       ``(3) a certification by the Inspector General of the 
     Department in which the Coast Guard is operating that items 
     included in the plan pursuant to paragraph (1) and (2) are 
     reasonable and realistic.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 5 of title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``98. National Coast Guard Museum.''.

     SEC. 214. LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF COMMISSIONED OFFICERS.

       Notwithstanding section 42(a) of title 14, United States 
     Code, the total number of commissioned officers, excluding 
     commissioned warrant officers, on active duty in the Coast 
     Guard shall not exceed 6,700 in fiscal year 2004.

     SEC. 215. REDISTRICTING NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.

       The Commandant shall notify the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives at least 
     180 days before--
       (1) implementing any plan to reduce the number of, change 
     the location of, or change the geographic area covered by any 
     existing Coast Guard Districts; or
       (2) shifting of more than 10 per cent of the personnel or 
     equipment from the station where such personnel or equipment 
     is based.

                         TITLE III--NAVIGATION

     SEC. 301. MARKING OF UNDERWATER WRECKS.

       Section 15 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 409), is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``day and'' and inserting ``day and, unless 
     otherwise authorized by the Commandant of the Coast Guard,''; 
     and
       (2) by striking ``lighted lantern'' and inserting 
     ``light''.

     SEC. 302. USE OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES; COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.

       Section 4(a) of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 
     (33 U.S.C. 1223(a)) is amended by--
       (1)(A) striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     paragraph (4);
       (B) striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) may prohibit the use on the bridge of a vessel of 
     electronic or other devices that interfere with 
     communications and navigation equipment.''; and
       (2) adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Cooperative Agreements.--(1) The Secretary may enter 
     into cooperative agreements with public or private agencies, 
     authorities, associations, institutions, corporations, 
     organizations, or other persons to carry out the functions 
     under subsection (a)(1).
       ``(2) A nongovernmental entity may not under this 
     subsection carry out an inherently governmental function.
       ``(3) As used in this paragraph, the term `inherently 
     governmental function' means any activity that is so 
     intimately related to the public interest as to mandate 
     performance by an officer or employee of the Federal 
     Government, including an activity that requires either the 
     exercise of discretion in applying the authority of the 
     Government or the use of judgment in making a decision for 
     the Government.''.

     SEC. 303. INLAND NAVIGATION RULES PROMULGATION AUTHORITY.

       (a) Repeal of Inland Rules.--Section 2 of the Inland 
     Navigational Rules Act of 1980 (33 U.S.C. 2001-38) is 
     repealed.
       (b) Authority To Issue Regulations.--Section 3 of the 
     Inland Navigational Rules Act of 1980 (33 U.S.C. 2001) is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 3. INLAND NAVIGATION RULES.

       ``The Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard 
     is operating may issue inland navigation regulations 
     applicable to all vessels

[[Page 27326]]

     upon the inland waters of the United States and technical 
     annexes that are as consistent as possible with the 
     respective annexes to the International Regulations.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) is effective on the 
     effective date of final regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is 
     operating under section 3 of the Inland Navigation Rules Act 
     of 1980 (33 U.S.C. 2001), as amended by this Act.

                           TITLE IV--SHIPPING

     SEC. 401. REPORTS FROM CHARTERERS.

       Section 12120 of title 46, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``owners and masters'' and inserting ``owners, 
     masters, and charterers''.

     SEC. 402. SUSPENSION OF DOCUMENTS IN LIEU OF MANDATORY 
                   REVOCATION FOR PROVED DRUG CONVICTIONS.

       Section 7704(b) of title 46, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting ``suspended or'' after ``shall be''.

     SEC. 403. INSPECTION OF RECORDS OF MERCHANT MARINERS' 
                   DOCUMENTS.

       Section 7319 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``The records are not open to general or public 
     inspection.''.

     SEC. 404. EXEMPTION OF UNMANNED BARGES FROM CITIZENSHIP 
                   REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMAND OF VESSEL.

       (a) Exemption From Limitation on Command.--Section 12110(d) 
     of title 46, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``or 
     an unmanned barge not engaged on a coastwise voyage'' after 
     ``recreational endorsement''.
       (b) Exemption From Seizure and Forfeiture.--Section 
     12122(b)(6) of title 46, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting ``or an unmanned barge not engaged on a coastwise 
     voyage'' after ``recreational endorsement''.

     SEC. 405. ADMINISTRATIVE, COLLECTION, AND ENFORCEMENT COSTS 
                   FOR CERTAIN FEES AND CHARGES.

       Section 2110(d) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(2)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), costs of collecting 
     the fee or charge include the reasonable administrative, 
     accounting, personnel, contract, equipment, supply, training, 
     and travel expenses of calculating, assessing, collecting, 
     enforcing, reviewing, adjusting, and reporting on the fees 
     and charges.''.

     SEC. 406. COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL SAFETY MANAGEMENT 
                   CODE.

       (a) Application of Existing Law.--Section 3202(a) of title 
     46, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Mandatory Application.--This chapter applies to a 
     vessel that--
       ``(1)(A) is transporting more than 12 passengers described 
     in section 2101(21)(A) of this title; or
       ``(B) is of at least 500 gross tons as measured under 
     section 14502 of this title, or an alternate tonnage measured 
     under section 14302 of this title as prescribed by the 
     Secretary under section 14104 of this title, that is a 
     tanker, freight vessel, bulk freight vessel, high speed 
     freight vessel, or self-propelled mobile offshore drilling 
     unit; and
       ``(2)(A) is engaged on a foreign voyage; or
       ``(B) is a foreign vessel departing from a place under the 
     jurisdiction of the United States on a voyage, any part of 
     which is on the high seas.''.
       (b) Compliance of Regulations With International Safety 
     Management Code.--Section 3203(b) of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``vessels engaged on a foreign 
     voyage.'' and inserting ``vessels to which this chapter 
     applies under section 3202(a) of this title.''.

     SEC. 407. CIVIL PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 
                   RECREATIONAL VESSEL AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT 
                   SAFETY STANDARDS.

       Section 4311(b) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking the first sentence and inserting ``A person 
     violating section 4307(a) of this title is liable to the 
     United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than 
     $5,000, except that the maximum civil penalty may be not more 
     than $250,000 for a related series of violations.''; and
       (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``4307(a)(1)'' and 
     inserting ``4307(a)''.

     SEC. 408. REVISION OF TEMPORARY SUSPENSION CRITERIA IN 
                   DOCUMENT SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION CASES.

       Section 7702(d) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``if, when acting under 
     the authority of that license, certificate, or document--'' 
     and inserting ``if--'';
       (2) in paragraph (1)(B)(i), by inserting ``, while acting 
     under the authority of that license, certificate, or 
     document,'' after ``has'';
       (3) by striking ``or'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     paragraph (1)(B)(ii);
       (4) by striking the period at the end of paragraph 
     (1)(B)(iii) and inserting ``; or''; and
       (5) by adding at the end of paragraph (1)(B) the following:
       ``(iv) is a threat to the safety or security of a vessel or 
     a public or commercial structure located within or adjacent 
     to the marine environment.''.

     SEC. 409. REVISION OF BASES FOR DOCUMENT SUSPENSION AND 
                   REVOCATION CASES.

       Section 7703 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B)--
       (A) by striking ``incompetence,''; and
       (B) by striking the comma after ``misconduct'';
       (2) by striking ``or'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     paragraph (2);
       (3) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) has committed an act of incompetence; or
       ``(5) is a threat to the safety or security of a vessel or 
     a structure located within or adjacent to the marine 
     environment.''.

     SEC. 410. HOURS OF SERVICE ON TOWING VESSELS.

       (a) Regulations.--Section 8904 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end of the following:
       ``(c) The Secretary may prescribe by regulation 
     requirements for maximum hours of service (including 
     recording and record-keeping of that service) of individuals 
     engaged on a towing vessel that is at least 26 feet in length 
     measured from end to end over the deck (excluding the 
     sheer).''.
       (b) Demonstration Project.--Prior to prescribing 
     regulations under this section the Secretary shall conduct 
     and report to the Congress on the results of a demonstration 
     project involving the implementation of Crew Endurance 
     Management Systems on towing vessels. The report shall 
     include a description of the public and private sector 
     resources needed to enable implementation of Crew Endurance 
     Management Systems on all United States-flag towing vessels.

     SEC. 411. AUTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM ELECTRONIC CHARTS.

       Section 70114(a)(1) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``, including an electronic chart and 
     related display,'' after ``automatic identification system'' 
     the first place it appears.

     SEC. 412. PREVENTION OF DEPARTURE.

       (a) In General.--Section 3505 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 3505. Prevention of departure

       ``Notwithstanding section 3303 of this title, a foreign 
     vessel carrying a citizen of the United States as a passenger 
     or that embarks passengers from a United States port may not 
     depart from a United States port if the Secretary finds that 
     the vessel does not comply with the standards stated in the 
     International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea to 
     which the United States Government is currently a party.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3303 of title 46, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting ``and section 3505'' 
     after ``chapter 37''.

                  TITLE V--FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

     SEC. 501. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FEDERAL 
                   MARITIME COMMISSION.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to the Federal 
     Maritime Commission $18,471,000 for Fiscal Year 2004.

                        TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 601. INCREASE IN CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF 
                   CERTAIN BRIDGE STATUTES.

       (a) General Bridge Act of 1906.--Section 5(b) of Act of 
     March 23, 1906 (chapter 1130; 33 U.S.C. 495), popularly known 
     as the General Bridge Act, is amended by striking ``$1,000'' 
     and inserting ``$5,000 for a violation occurring in 2004; 
     $10,000 for a violation occurring in 2005; $15,000 for a 
     violation occurring in 2006; $20,000 for a violation 
     occurring in 2007; and $25,000 for a violation occurring in 
     2008 and any year thereafter''.
       (b) Drawbridges.--Section 5(c) of the Act entitled ``An Act 
     making appropriations for the construction, repair, and 
     preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, 
     and for other purposes'', approved August 18, 1894 (33 U.S.C. 
     499(c)), is amended by striking ``$1,000'' and inserting 
     ``$5,000 for a violation occurring in 2004; $10,000 for a 
     violation occurring in 2005; $15,000 for a violation 
     occurring in 2006; $20,000 for a violation occurring in 2007; 
     and $25,000 for a violation occurring in 2008 and any year 
     thereafter''.
       (c) Alteration, Removal, or Repair of Bridges.--Section 
     18(c) of the Act entitled ``An Act making appropriations for 
     the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public 
     works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes'', 
     approved March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 502(c)) is amended by 
     striking ``$1,000'' and inserting ``$5,000 for a violation 
     occurring in 2004; $10,000 for a violation occurring in 2005; 
     $15,000 for a violation occurring in 2006; $20,000 for a 
     violation occurring in 2007; and $25,000 for a violation 
     occurring in 2008 and any year thereafter''.
       (d) General Bridge Act of 1946.--Section 510(b) of the 
     General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 533(b)) is amended by 
     striking ``$1,000'' and inserting ``$5,000 for a violation 
     occurring in 2004; $10,000 for a violation occurring in 2005; 
     $15,000 for a violation occurring in 2006; $20,000 for a 
     violation occurring in 2007; and $25,000 for a violation 
     occurring in 2008 and any year thereafter''.

     SEC. 602. CONVEYANCE OF DECOMMISSIONED COAST GUARD CUTTER 
                   SUNDEW.

       (a) In General.--Upon the scheduled decommissioning of the 
     Coast Guard Cutter SUNDEW, the Commandant of the Coast Guard 
     shall convey all right, title, and interest of the United 
     States in and to that vessel to Duluth Entertainment and 
     Convention Center Authority (a nonprofit corporation under 
     the laws of the State of Minnesota; in this section referred 
     to as the ``recipient''), located in Duluth, Minnesota, 
     without consideration, if--
       (1) the recipient agrees--
       (A) to use the vessel for purposes of education and 
     historical display;

[[Page 27327]]

       (B) not to use the vessel for commercial transportation 
     purposes;
       (C) to make the vessel available to the United States 
     Government if needed for use by the Commandant in time of war 
     or a national emergency; and
       (D) to hold the Government harmless for any claims arising 
     from exposure to hazardous materials, including asbestos and 
     polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), after conveyance of the 
     vessel, except for claims arising from the use by the 
     Government under subparagraph (C);
       (2) the recipient has funds available that will be 
     committed to operate and maintain the vessel conveyed in good 
     working condition, in the form of cash, liquid assets, or a 
     written loan commitment, and in an amount of at least 
     $700,000; and
       (3) the recipient agrees to any other conditions the 
     Commandant considers appropriate.
       (b) Maintenance and Delivery of Vessel.--Prior to 
     conveyance of the vessel under this section, the Commandant 
     shall, to the extent practical, and subject to other Coast 
     Guard mission requirements, make every effort to maintain the 
     integrity of the vessel and its equipment until the time of 
     delivery. If a conveyance is made under this section, the 
     Commandant shall deliver the vessel at the place where the 
     vessel is located, in its present condition, and without cost 
     to the Government. The conveyance of the vessel under this 
     section shall not be considered a distribution in commerce 
     for purposes of section 6(e) of Public Law 94-469 (15 U.S.C. 
     2605(e)).
       (c) Other Excess Equipment.--The Commandant may convey to 
     the recipient any excess equipment or parts from other 
     decommissioned Coast Guard vessels for use to enhance the 
     vessel's operability and function as an historical display.

     SEC. 603. TONNAGE MEASUREMENT.

       (a) M/V BLUEFIN.--The gross tonnage of the M/V BLUEFIN 
     (United States official number 620431) as measured under 
     regulations prescribed under section 14502 of title 46, 
     United States Code, is deemed to be 488 tons.
       (b) M/V COASTAL MERCHANT.--The gross tonnage of the M/V 
     COASTAL MERCHANT (United States official number 1038382) as 
     measured under regulations prescribed under section 14502 of 
     title 46, United States Code, is deemed to be 493 tons.
       (c) Termination of Application.--Subsection (a) or (b) 
     shall not apply on and after any date on which the Secretary 
     of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating 
     determines, respectively, that the vessel M/V BLUEFIN or the 
     vessel M/V COASTAL MERCHANT has undergone any major 
     modification.

     SEC. 604. OPERATION OF VESSEL STAD AMSTERDAM.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 8 of the Act of 
     June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and the ruling by the 
     Acting Director of the International Trade Compliance 
     Division of the Customs Service on May 17, 2002 (Customs 
     Bulletins and Decisions, Vol. 36, No. 23, June 5, 2002), the 
     vessel STAD AMSTERDAM (International Maritime Organization 
     number 9185554) shall be authorized to carry within United 
     States waters and between ports or places in the United 
     States individuals who are not directly and substantially 
     connected with the operation, navigation, ownership, or 
     business of the vessel, who are friends, guests, or employees 
     of the owner of the vessel, and who are not actual or 
     prospective customers for hire of the vessel.
       (b) Limitation.--This section does not authorize the vessel 
     STAD AMSTERDAM to be used to carry individuals for a fare or 
     to be chartered on a for-hire basis in the coastwise trade.

     SEC. 605. GREAT LAKES NATIONAL MARITIME ENHANCEMENT 
                   INSTITUTE.

       (a) Designation.--The Secretary of Transportation may 
     designate a National Maritime Enhancement Institute for the 
     Great Lakes Region.
       (b) Authorized Activities.--In addition to the activities 
     that may be undertaken by that Institute under section 8(b) 
     of Public Law 101-115 (46 App. U.S.C. 1121-2), the Great 
     Lakes National Maritime Enhancement Institute may--
       (1) conduct research and evaluate short sea shipping market 
     opportunities on the Great Lakes, including the expanded use 
     of freight ferries, improved mobility, and regional supply 
     chain efficiency;
       (2) evaluate markets for foreign trade between ports on the 
     Great Lakes and draft-limited ports in Europe and Africa;
       (3) evaluate the environmental benefits of waterborne 
     transportation in the Great Lakes region;
       (4) analyze the effect of the Harbor Maintenance Tax on 
     Great Lakes shipping;
       (5) study the state of shipbuilding and ship repair base on 
     the Great Lakes;
       (6) evaluate opportunities for passenger vessel services on 
     the Great Lakes;
       (7) analyze the origin to destination flow of freight cargo 
     in the Great Lakes region that may be transported on vessels 
     to relieve congestion in other modes of transportation;
       (8) evaluate the economic viability establishing 
     transshipment facilities for oceangoing cargoes;
       (9) evaluate the adequacy of the infrastructure in ports to 
     meet the needs of marine commerce; and
       (10) study and develop new vessel designs for domestic and 
     international shipping on the Great Lakes.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary $5,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2004 through 2008 for the activities described 
     in subsection (b).

     SEC. 606. AGILE PORT AND INTELLIGENT BORDER SECURITY NATIONAL 
                   DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation may carry 
     out an Agile Port and Intelligent Border Security National 
     Demonstration Project under the Center for the Commercial 
     Deployment of Transportation Technologies to develop and 
     deploy dual use transportation technologies for commercial 
     applications, including the following:
       (1) Agile port facilities, including inland multi-modal 
     transportation facilities.
       (2) Advanced cargo and passenger vessel hull design, 
     propulsion systems, and construction.
       (3) Regional supply chain efficiency, improved mobility, 
     and air quality.
       (4) Maritime, port, cargo, and supply chain security, and 
     total asset visibility.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--To carry out the 
     demonstration project under subsection (a) there is 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Transportation $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.

     SEC. 607. KOSS COVE.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     or existing policy, the cove described in subsection (b) 
     shall be known and designated as ``Koss Cove'', in honor of 
     the late Able Bodied Seaman Eric Steiner Koss of the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration vessel RAINER who died 
     in the performance of a nautical charting mission off the 
     coast of Alaska.
       (b) Cove Described.--The cove referred to in subsection (a) 
     is--
       (1) adjacent to and southeast of Point Elrington, Alaska, 
     and forms a portion of the southern coast of Elrington 
     Island;
       (2) \3/4\ mile across the mouth;
       (3) centered at 59 degrees 56.1 minutes North, 148 degrees 
     14 minutes West; and
       (4) 45 miles from Seaward, Alaska.
       (c) References.--Any reference in any law, regulation, 
     document, record, map, or other paper of the United States to 
     the cove described in subsection (b) is deemed to be a 
     reference to Koss Cove.

     SEC. 608. MISCELLANEOUS CERTIFICATES OF DOCUMENTATION.

       Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 
     (46 App. U.S.C. 883), section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 
     (24 Stat. 81, chapter 421; 46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 
     12106 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of the 
     department in which the Coast Guard is operating may issue a 
     certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
     employment in the coastwise trade for the following vessels:
       (1) OCEAN LEADER (United States official number 679511).
       (2) REVELATION (United States official number 1137565).

     SEC. 609. DREDGING STUDY.

       (a) Study.--The Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
     shall study and report to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives on the impacts 
     of chartering by foreign citizens of dredges documented under 
     the laws of the United States, on--
       (1) the structure, conduct, and performance, of the United 
     States dredging market; and
       (2) costs paid by Federal agencies for dredging projects.
       (b) Foreign Citizen Defined.--In subsection (a), the term 
     ``foreign citizen'' means any corporation, partnership, or 
     association that does not qualify as a citizen of the United 
     States under section 2 of the Shipping Act of 1916 (46 APP. 
     U.S.C. 802).

     SEC. 610. REPORT REGARDING SECURITY INSPECTION OF VESSELS AND 
                   VESSEL-BORNE CARGO CONTAINERS ENTERING THE 
                   UNITED STATES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Department in 
     which the Coast Guard is operating shall report to the 
     Congress regarding the numbers and types of vessels and 
     vessel-borne cargo containers that enter the United States in 
     a year.
       (b) Contents.--The report under this section shall include 
     the following:
       (1) A section regarding security inspection of vessels that 
     includes the following:
       (A) A complete breakdown of the numbers and types of 
     vessels that entered the United States in the most recent 1-
     year period for which information is available.
       (B) The cost incurred by the Federal Government in 
     inspecting such vessels in such 1-year period, including 
     specification and comparison of such cost for each type of 
     vessel.
       (C) An estimate of the per-vessel cost that would be 
     incurred by the Federal Government in inspecting in a foreign 
     port each type of vessel that enters the United States each 
     year, including costs for personnel, vessels, equipment, and 
     funds.
       (D) An estimate of the annual total cost that would be 
     incurred by the Federal Government in inspecting in foreign 
     ports all vessels that enter the United States each year, 
     including costs for personnel, vessels, equipment, and funds.
       (2) A section regarding security inspection of containers 
     that includes the following:
       (A) A complete breakdown of the numbers and types of 
     vessel-borne cargo containers that entered the United States 
     in the most recent 1-year period for which information is 
     available, including specification of the number of 1 TEU 
     containers and the number of 2 TEU containers.

[[Page 27328]]

       (B) The cost incurred by the Federal Government in 
     inspecting such containers in such 1-year period, including 
     specification and comparison of such cost for a 1 TEU 
     container and for a 2 TEU container.
       (C) An estimate of the per-container cost that would be 
     incurred by the Federal Government in inspecting in a foreign 
     port each type of vessel-borne container that enters the 
     United States each year, including costs for personnel, 
     vessels, equipment, and funds.
       (D) An estimate of the annual total cost that would be 
     incurred by the Federal Government in inspecting in foreign 
     ports all vessel-borne containers that enter the United 
     States each year, including costs for personnel, vessels, 
     equipment, and funds.

      TITLE VII--AMENDMENTS RELATING TO OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990

     SEC. 701. VESSEL RESPONSE PLANS FOR NONTANK VESSELS OVER 400 
                   GROSS TONS.

       (a) Nontank Vessel Defined.--Section 311(j) of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) Nontank vessel defined.--In this subsection, the term 
     `nontank vessel' means a self-propelled vessel of 400 gross 
     tons (as measured under section 14502 of title 46, United 
     States Code, or an alternate tonnage measured under section 
     14302 of such title as prescribed by the Secretary under 
     section 14104 of such title) or greater, other than a tank 
     vessel, that carries oil of any kind as fuel for main 
     propulsion and that--
       ``(A) is a vessel of the United States; or
       ``(B) operates on the navigable waters of the United 
     States.''.
       (b) Amendments To Require Response Plans.--Section 311(j) 
     of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1321(j)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5) in the heading by inserting ``, 
     nontank vessel,'' after ``vessel'';
       (2) in paragraph 5(A) by inserting ``, nontank vessel,'' 
     after ``vessel'';
       (3) in paragraph (5)(B), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by inserting ``, nontank vessels,'' after ``vessels'';
       (4) in paragraph (5)(B), by redesignating clauses (ii) and 
     (iii) as clauses (iii) and (iv), respectively, and by 
     inserting after clause (i) the following:
       ``(ii) A nontank vessel.'';
       (5) in paragraph (5)(D)--
       (A) by inserting ``, nontank vessel,'' after ``vessel'';
       (B) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     clause (iii);
       (C) by striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (D) by adding after clause (iv) the following:
       ``(v) for nontank vessels, consider any applicable State-
     mandated response plan and ensure consistency to the extent 
     practicable.'';
       (6) in paragraph (5)(E), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by inserting ``nontank vessel,'' after ``vessel,'';
       (7) in paragraph (5)(E)(i) by inserting ``nontank vessel,'' 
     , after ``vessel,'';
       (8) in paragraph (5)(F) by striking ``tank vessel or'' and 
     inserting ``vessel or'';
       (9) in paragraph (5)(G) by inserting ``nontank vessel,'' 
     after ``vessel,'';
       (10) in paragraph (5)(H) by inserting ``and nontank 
     vessel'' after ``each tank vessel'';
       (11) in paragraph (6) in the matter preceding subparagraph 
     (A) by striking ``Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the President shall require--'' 
     and inserting ``The President may require--'';
       (12) in paragraph (6)(B) by inserting ``, and nontank 
     vessels carrying oil of any kind as fuel for main 
     propulsion,'' after ``cargo''; and
       (13) in paragraph (7) by inserting ``, nontank vessel,'' 
     after ``vessel''.
       (c) Implementation Date.--The President shall not require 
     the owner or operator of a nontank vessel (as defined section 
     311(j)(9) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1321(j)(9), as amended by this section) to prepare and 
     submit a vessel response plan for such vessel before the end 
     of the one-year period beginning on the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 702. REQUIREMENTS FOR TANK LEVEL AND PRESSURE MONITORING 
                   DEVICES.

       Section 4110 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (46 U.S.C. 
     3703 note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``Not later than 1 year 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     shall'' and inserting ``The Secretary may'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall'' and 
     inserting ``No sooner than 1 year after the Secretary 
     prescribes regulations under subsection (a), the Secretary 
     may''; and
       (B) by striking ``the standards'' and inserting ``any 
     standards''.

     SEC. 703. LIABILITY AND COST RECOVERY.

       (a) Definition of Owner or Operator.--Section 1001(26) of 
     the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701(26)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(26) `owner or operator'--
       ``(A) means--
       ``(i) in the case of a vessel, any person owning, 
     operating, or chartering by demise, the vessel;
       ``(ii) in the case of an onshore or offshore facility, any 
     person owning or operating such facility;
       ``(iii) in the case of any abandoned offshore facility, the 
     person who owned or operated such facility immediately prior 
     to such abandonment;
       ``(iv) in the case of any facility, title or control of 
     which was conveyed due to bankruptcy, foreclosure, tax 
     delinquency, abandonment, or similar means to a unit of State 
     or local government, any person who owned, operated, or 
     otherwise controlled activities at such facility immediately 
     beforehand;
       ``(v) notwithstanding subparagraph (B)(i), any State or 
     local government that has caused or contributed to a 
     discharge or substantial threat of a discharge of oil from a 
     vessel or facility ownership or control of which was acquired 
     involuntarily through bankruptcy, tax delinquency, 
     abandonment, or other circumstances in which the government 
     involuntarily acquires title by virtue of its function as 
     sovereign; and
       ``(vi) notwithstanding subparagraph (B)(ii), a person that 
     is a lender and that holds indicia of ownership primarily to 
     protect a security interest in a vessel or facility if, while 
     the borrower is still in possession of the vessel or facility 
     encumbered by the security interest, the person--

       ``(I) exercises decisionmaking control over the 
     environmental compliance related to the vessel or facility, 
     such that the person has undertaken responsibility for oil 
     handling or disposal practices related to the vessel or 
     facility; or
       ``(II) exercises control at a level comparable to that of a 
     manager of the vessel or facility, such that the person has 
     assumed or manifested responsibility--

       ``(aa) for the overall management of the vessel or facility 
     encompassing day-to-day decisionmaking with respect to 
     environmental compliance; or
       ``(bb) over all or substantially all of the operational 
     functions (as distinguished from financial or administrative 
     functions) of the vessel or facility other than the function 
     of environmental compliance; and
       ``(B) does not include--
       ``(i) a unit of State or local government that acquired 
     ownership or control of a vessel or facility involuntarily 
     through bankruptcy, tax delinquency, abandonment, or other 
     circumstances in which the government involuntarily acquires 
     title by virtue of its function as sovereign;
       ``(ii) a person that is a lender that does not participate 
     in management of a vessel or facility, but holds indicia of 
     ownership primarily to protect the security interest of the 
     person in the vessel or facility;
       ``(iii) a person that is a lender that did not participate 
     in management of a vessel or facility prior to foreclosure, 
     notwithstanding that the person--

       ``(I) forecloses on the vessel or facility; and
       ``(II) after foreclosure, sells, re-leases (in the case of 
     a lease finance transaction), or liquidates the vessel or 
     facility, maintains business activities, winds up operations, 
     undertakes a removal action under 311(c) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 311(c)) or under the 
     direction of an on-scene coordinator appointed under the 
     National Contingency Plan, with respect to the vessel or 
     facility, or takes any other measure to preserve, protect, or 
     prepare the vessel or facility prior to sale or disposition,

     if the person seeks to sell, re-lease (in the case of a lease 
     finance transaction), or otherwise divest the person of the 
     vessel or facility at the earliest practicable, commercially 
     reasonable time, on commercially reasonable terms, taking 
     into account market conditions and legal and regulatory 
     requirements;''.
       (b) Other Definitions.--Section 1001 of the Oil Pollution 
     Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701) is amended by striking ``and'' 
     after the semicolon at the end of paragraph (36), by striking 
     the period at the end of paragraph (37) and inserting a 
     semicolon, and by adding at the end the following:
       ``(38) `participate in management'--
       ``(A)(i) means actually participating in the management or 
     operational affairs of a vessel or facility; and
       ``(ii) does not include merely having the capacity to 
     influence, or the unexercised right to control, vessel or 
     facility operations; and
       ``(B) does not include--
       ``(i) performing an act or failing to act prior to the time 
     at which a security interest is created in a vessel or 
     facility;
       ``(ii) holding a security interest or abandoning or 
     releasing a security interest;
       ``(iii) including in the terms of an extension of credit, 
     or in a contract or security agreement relating to the 
     extension, a covenant, warranty, or other term or condition 
     that relates to environmental compliance;
       ``(iv) monitoring or enforcing the terms and conditions of 
     the extension of credit or security interest;
       ``(v) monitoring or undertaking one or more inspections of 
     the vessel or facility;
       ``(vi) requiring a removal action or other lawful means of 
     addressing a discharge or substantial threat of a discharge 
     of oil in connection with the vessel or facility prior to, 
     during, or on the expiration of the term of the extension of 
     credit;
       ``(vii) providing financial or other advice or counseling 
     in an effort to mitigate, prevent, or cure default or 
     diminution in the value of the vessel or facility;
       ``(viii) restructuring, renegotiating, or otherwise 
     agreeing to alter the terms and conditions of the extension 
     of credit or security interest, exercising forbearance;
       ``(ix) exercising other remedies that may be available 
     under applicable law for the breach of a term or condition of 
     the extension of credit or security agreement; or
       ``(x) conducting a removal action under 311(c) of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33

[[Page 27329]]

     U.S.C. 1321(c)) or under the direction of an on-scene 
     coordinator appointed under the National Contingency Plan,

     if such actions do not rise to the level of participating in 
     management under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph and 
     paragraph (26)(A)(vi);
       ``(39) `extension of credit' has the meaning provided in 
     section 101(20)(G)(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9601(20)(G)(i));
       ``(40) `financial or administrative function' has the 
     meaning provided in section 101(20)(G)(ii) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601(20)(G)(ii));
       ``(41) `foreclosure' and `foreclose' each has the meaning 
     provided in section 101(20)(G)(iii) of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601(20)(G)(iii));
       ``(42) `lender' has the meaning provided in section 
     101(20)(G)(iv) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9601(20)(G)(iv));
       ``(43) `operational function' has the meaning provided in 
     section 101(20)(G)(v) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9601(20)(G)(v)); and
       ``(44) `security interest' has the meaning provided in 
     section 101(20)(G)(vi) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9601(20)(G)(vi)).''.
        (c) Definition of Contractual Relationship.--Section 1003 
     of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2703) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Definition of Contractual Relationship.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a)(3) the 
     term `contractual relationship' includes, but is not limited 
     to, land contracts, deeds, easements, leases, or other 
     instruments transferring title or possession, unless--
       ``(A) the real property on which the facility concerned is 
     located was acquired by the responsible party after the 
     discharge of the oil on, in, or at the facility;
       ``(B) one or more of the circumstances described in 
     subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (2) is established 
     by the responsible party by a preponderance of the evidence; 
     and
       ``(C) the responsible party complies with paragraph (3).
       ``(2) required circumstance.--The circumstances referred to 
     in paragraph (1)(B) are the following:
       ``(A) At the time the responsible party acquired the real 
     property on which the facility is located the responsible 
     party did not know and had no reason to know that oil that is 
     the subject of the discharge or substantial threat of 
     discharge was placed on, in, or at the facility.
       ``(B) The responsible party is a government entity that 
     acquired the facility--
       ``(i) by escheat;
       ``(ii) through any other involuntary transfer or 
     acquisition; or
       ``(iii) through the exercise of eminent domain authority by 
     purchase or condemnation.
       ``(C) The responsible party acquired the facility by 
     inheritance or bequest.
       ``(3) Additional requirements.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1)(C), the responsible party must establish by a 
     preponderance of the evidence that the responsible party--
       ``(A) has satisfied the requirements of section 
     1003(a)(3)(A) and (B);
       ``(B) has provided full cooperation, assistance, and 
     facility access to the persons that are authorized to conduct 
     removal actions, including the cooperation and access 
     necessary for the installation, integrity, operation, and 
     maintenance of any complete or partial removal action;
       ``(C) is in compliance with any land use restrictions 
     established or relied on in connection with the removal 
     action; and
       ``(D) has not impeded the effectiveness or integrity of any 
     institutional control employed in connection with the removal 
     action.
       ``(4) Reason to know.--
       ``(A) Appropriate inquiries.--To establish that the 
     responsible party had no reason to know of the matter 
     described in paragraph (2)(A), the responsible party must 
     demonstrate that--
       ``(i) on or before the date on which the responsible party 
     acquired the real property on which the facility is located, 
     the responsible party carried out all appropriate inquiries, 
     as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (D), into the previous 
     ownership and uses of the real property on which the facility 
     is located in accordance with generally accepted good 
     commercial and customary standards and practices; and
       ``(ii) the responsible party took reasonable steps to--

       ``(I) stop any continuing discharge;
       ``(II) prevent, minimize or mitigate any substantial threat 
     of discharge; and
       ``(III) prevent or limit any human, environmental, or 
     natural resource exposure to any discharged oil.

       ``(B) Regulations establishing standards and practices.--
     Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
     this paragraph, the Secretary shall by regulation establish 
     standards and practices for the purpose of satisfying the 
     requirement to carry out all appropriate inquiries under 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Criteria.--In promulgating regulations that establish 
     the standards and practices referred to in subparagraph (B), 
     the Secretary shall include in such standards provisions 
     regarding each of the following:
       ``(i) The results of an inquiry by an environmental 
     professional.
       ``(ii) Interviews with past and present owners, operators, 
     and occupants of the facility and the real property on which 
     the facility is located for the purpose of gathering 
     information regarding the potential for oil at the facility 
     and on the real property on which the facility is located.
       ``(iii) Reviews of historical sources, including, to the 
     extent available, chain of title documents, aerial 
     photographs, building department records, and land use 
     records, to determine previous uses and occupancies of the 
     real property on which the facility is located since the 
     property was first developed.
       ``(iv) Searches for recorded environmental cleanup liens 
     against the facility and the real property on which the 
     facility is located that are filed under Federal, State, or 
     local law.
       ``(v) Reviews of Federal, State, and local government 
     records, waste disposal records, underground storage tank 
     records, and waste handling, generation, treatment, disposal, 
     and spill records, concerning oil at the facility and on the 
     real property on which the facility is located.
       ``(vi) Visual inspections of the facility, the real 
     property on which the facility is located, and adjoining 
     properties.
       ``(vii) Specialized knowledge or experience on the part of 
     the responsible party.
       ``(viii) The relationship of the purchase price to the 
     value of the facility and the real property on which the 
     facility is located, if oil was not at the facility or on the 
     real property.
       ``(ix) Commonly known or reasonably ascertainable 
     information about the facility and the real property on which 
     the facility is located.
       ``(x) The degree of obviousness of the presence or likely 
     presence of oil at the facility and on the real property on 
     which the facility is located, and the ability to detect the 
     oil by appropriate investigation.
       ``(D) Interim standards and practices.--
       ``(i) Real property purchased before may 31, 1997.--With 
     respect to real property purchased before May 31, 1997, in 
     making a determination with respect to a responsible party 
     described in subparagraph (A), a court or appropriate 
     official shall take into account--

       ``(I) any specialized knowledge or experience on the part 
     of the responsible party;
       ``(II) the relationship of the purchase price to the value 
     of the facility and the real property on which the facility 
     is located, if oil was not at the facility or on the real 
     property;
       ``(III) commonly known or reasonably ascertainable 
     information about the facility and the real property on which 
     the facility is located;
       ``(IV) the obviousness of the presence or likely presence 
     of oil at the facility and on the real property on which the 
     facility is located; and
       ``(V) the ability of the responsible party to detect the 
     oil by appropriate inspection.

       ``(ii) Real property purchased on or after may 31, 1997.--
     With respect to real property purchased on or after May 31, 
     1997, until the Secretary promulgates the regulations 
     described in clause (ii), the procedures of the American 
     Society for Testing and Materials, including the document 
     known as `Standard E1527-97', entitled `Standard Practice for 
     Environmental Site Assessment: Phase I Environmental Site 
     Assessment Process', shall satisfy the requirements in 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(E) Site inspection and title search.--In the case of 
     real property for residential use or other similar use 
     purchased by a nongovernmental or noncommercial entity, 
     inspection and title search of the facility and the real 
     property on which the facility is located that reveal no 
     basis for further investigation shall be considered to 
     satisfy the requirements of this paragraph.
       ``(5) Previous owner or operator.--Nothing in this 
     paragraph or in section 1003(a)(3) shall diminish the 
     liability of any previous owner or operator of such facility 
     who would otherwise be liable under this Act. Notwithstanding 
     this paragraph, if a responsible party obtained actual 
     knowledge of the discharge or substantial threat of discharge 
     of oil at such facility when the responsible party owned the 
     facility and then subsequently transferred ownership of the 
     facility or the real property on which the facility is 
     located to another person without disclosing such knowledge, 
     the responsible party shall be treated as liable under 
     1002(a) and no defense under section 1003(a) shall be 
     available to such responsible party.
       ``(6) Limitation on defense.--Nothing in this paragraph 
     shall affect the liability under this Act of a responsible 
     party who, by any act or omission, caused or contributed to 
     the discharge or substantial threat of discharge of oil which 
     is the subject of the action relating to the facility.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. During consideration of the bill for 
amendment, the Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member 
offering an amendment that he has printed in the designated place in 
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered as read.
  Are there any amendments to the bill?


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. LoBiondo

  Mr. LoBIONDO. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. LoBiondo:
       Strike section 101 (page 3, beginning at line 2) and insert 
     the following:


[[Page 27330]]

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Funds are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 
     2004 for necessary expenses of the Coast Guard as follows:
       (1) For the operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard, 
     $4,865,000,000, of which $25,000,000 is authorized to be 
     derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out 
     the purposes of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act 
     of 1990.
       (2) For the acquisition, construction, rebuilding, and 
     improvement of aids to navigation, shore and offshore 
     facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment 
     related thereto, $1,147,000,000, of which--
       (A) $23,500,000 is authorized to be derived from the Oil 
     Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of 
     section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990; and
       (B) $702,000,000 is authorized for acquisition and 
     construction of shore and offshore facilities, vessels, and 
     aircraft, including equipment related thereto, and other 
     activities that constitute the Integrated Deepwater System 
     program.
       (3) For research, development, test, and evaluation of 
     technologies, materials, and human factors directly relating 
     to improving the performance of the Coast Guard's mission in 
     search and rescue, aids to navigation, marine safety, marine 
     environmental protection, enforcement of laws and treaties, 
     ice operations, oceanographic research, and defense 
     readiness, $22,000,000, to remain available until expended, 
     of which $3,500,000 is authorized to be derived from the Oil 
     Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of 
     section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
       (4) For retired pay (including payment of obligations 
     otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for this 
     purpose), payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family 
     Protection and Survivor Benefit Plans, and payments for 
     medical care of retired personnel and their dependents under 
     chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, $1,020,000,000.
       (5) For alteration or removal of bridges over navigable 
     waters of the United States constituting obstructions to 
     navigation, and for personnel and administrative costs 
     associated with the Bridge Alteration Program, $19,250,000, 
     to remain available until expended.
       (6) For environmental compliance and restoration at Coast 
     Guard facilities (other than parts and equipment associated 
     with operation and maintenance), $17,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.
       (7) For maintenance and operation of facilities, supplies, 
     equipment, and services necessary for the Coast Guard 
     Reserve, as authorized by law, $114,000,000.
       Strike section 205 (page 10, beginning at line 12) and 
     insert the following:

     SEC. 205. INDEMNIFICATION FOR DISABLING VESSELS LIABLE TO 
                   SEIZURE OR EXAMINATION.

       (a) Repeal of Requirement To Fire Warning Shot.--Subsection 
     (a) of section 637 of title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)'';
       (2) by striking ``after a'' and all that follows through 
     ``signal,'' and inserting ``subject to paragraph (2),''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Before firing at or into a vessel as authorized in 
     paragraph (1), the person in command or in charge of the 
     authorized vessel or authorized aircraft shall fire a gun as 
     a warning signal, except that the prior firing of a gun as a 
     warning signal is not required if that person determines that 
     the firing of a warning signal would unreasonably endanger 
     persons or property in the vicinity of the vessel to be 
     stopped.''.
       (b) Extension to Military Aircraft of Coast Guard 
     Interdiction Authority.--Subsection (c) of such section is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by inserting ``or'' after the 
     semicolon; and
       (2) in paragraph (2) by--
       (A) inserting ``or military aircraft'' after ``surface 
     naval vessel''; and
       (B) striking ``; or'' and all that follows through 
     paragraph (3) and inserting a period.
       (c) Repeal of Termination of Applicability to Naval 
     Aircraft.--Subsection (d) of such section is repealed.
       (d) Technical Correction.--
       (1) Correction.--Section 637 of title 14, United States 
     Code, is amended in the section heading by striking 
     ``immunity'' and inserting ``indemnification''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 17 of title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 637 and 
     inserting the following:

``637. Stopping vessels; indemnification for firing at or into 
              vessel.''.
       Page 12, line 21, insert ``, subject to the availability of 
     appropriations,'' after ``expense, and''.
       Strike section 209 (page 17, beginning at line 7) and 
     insert the following:

     SEC. 209. MAXIMUM AGE FOR RETENTION IN AN ACTIVE STATUS.

       Section 742 of title 14, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 742. Maximum age for retention in an active status

       ``(a) A Reserve officer, if qualified, shall be transferred 
     to the Retired Reserve on the day the officer becomes 60 
     years of age unless on active duty. If not qualified for 
     retirement, a Reserve officer shall be discharged effective 
     upon the day the officer becomes 60 years of age unless on 
     active duty.
       ``(b) A Reserve officer on active duty shall, if qualified, 
     be retired effective upon the day the officer become 62 years 
     of age. If not qualified for retirement, a Reserve officer on 
     active duty shall be discharged effective upon the day the 
     officer becomes 62 years of age.
       ``(c) Notwithstanding subsection (a)and (b), the Secretary 
     may authorize the retention of a Reserve rear admiral or rear 
     admiral (lower half) in an active status not longer than the 
     day on which the officer concerned becomes 64 years of age.
       ``(d) For purposes of this section, `active duty' does not 
     include active duty for training, duty on a board, or duty of 
     a limited or temporary nature if assigned to active duty from 
     an inactive duty status.''.
       At the end of title II (page 22, after line 5) insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 2__. ROTC DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

       (a) In General.--For the purpose of preparing selected 
     students for commissioned service in the Coast Guard, the 
     Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is 
     operating (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary''), 
     in consultation with the Superintendent of the Coast Guard 
     Academy, may establish and maintain a Senior Reserve 
     Officers' Training Corps demonstration project at the 
     University of Alaska (in this section referred to as the 
     ``University'').
       (b) Obligations of University, Generally.--As part of any 
     demonstration project undertaken under this section, the 
     University shall--
       (1) give the senior commissioned Coast Guard officer who is 
     assigned to the project the academic rank of professor;
       (2) adopt, as a part of its curriculum, a 4-year course of 
     military instruction as prescribed by the Secretary; and
       (3) provide advanced training to eligible members of the 
     project.
       (c) Student Eligibility.--To be eligible for membership in 
     the project an individual must--
       (1) be a student at the University;
       (2) be a citizen of the United States;
       (3) be selected for advanced training under procedures 
     prescribed by the Secretary;
       (4) enlist in the Coast Guard for the period prescribed by 
     the Secretary;
       (5) contract (with the consent of the individual's parent 
     or guardian if the individual is a minor) with the Secretary, 
     or a designated representative of the Secretary, to serve for 
     the period required by the program;
       (6) agree in writing to accept an appointment, if offered, 
     as a commissioned officer in the Coast Guard and to serve for 
     the period prescribed by the Secretary;
       (7) either--
       (A) complete successfully--
       (i) the first 2 years of the 4-year Senior Coast Guard 
     Reserve Officers' Training Corps course; or
       (ii) field training or a practice cruise of a duration 
     prescribed by the Secretary as a preliminary requirement for 
     admission to the advanced course; or
       (B) at the discretion of the Secretary concerned, agree in 
     writing to complete field training or a practice cruise, as 
     prescribed by the Secretary, within 2 years after admission 
     to the advanced course; and
       (8) execute a certificate of loyalty in such form as the 
     Secretary prescribes or take a loyalty oath as prescribed by 
     the Secretary.
       (d) Service Obligation.--A member of the project who is 
     selected for advanced training under subsection (c), and who 
     does not complete the course of instruction, or who completes 
     the course but declines to accept a commission when offered, 
     may be ordered to active duty by the Secretary to serve in 
     the member's enlisted grade or rating for such period of time 
     as the Secretary prescribes but not for more than 2 years.
       (e) Appointment as Officer.--
       (1) In general.--Upon satisfactorily completing the 
     academic and military requirements of the program of advanced 
     training under subsection (c), a member of the project who 
     was selected for advanced training under subsection (c) may 
     be appointed as a regular or reserve officer in the Coast 
     Guard in the grade of second lieutenant or ensign, even if 
     under 21 years of age.
       (2) Date of rank.--The date of rank of officers appointed 
     under this subsection in May or June of any year is the date 
     of graduation of cadets from the Coast Guard Academy. The 
     Secretary shall establish the date of rank of all other 
     officers appointed under this subsection.
       (3) Computation of length of service.--In computing length 
     of service for any purpose, an officer appointed under this 
     subsection may not be credited with enlisted service for the 
     period covered by advanced training under this section, other 
     than any period of enlisted service performed in the Coast 
     Guard.
       (f) Appointment as Cadet.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may appoint as a cadet in 
     the Coast Guard reserve any eligible member of the project 
     who will be under 31 years of age on December 31 of the 
     calendar year in which the member is eligible under this 
     section for appointment as an ensign in the Coast Guard.

[[Page 27331]]

       (2) Eligibility requirements.--To be an eligible member of 
     the project for purposes of paragraph (1) a member must--
       (A) be a citizen of the United States;
       (B) be specially selected for the financial assistance 
     program under procedures prescribed by the Secretary;
       (C) enlist in the Coast Guard reserve as a cadet for the 
     period prescribed by the Secretary;
       (D) contract (with the consent of the member's parent or 
     guardian if the member is a minor) with the Secretary, or a 
     designated representative of the Secretary, to serve for the 
     period required by the project; and
       (E) agree in writing that, at the discretion of the 
     Secretary, the member will--
       (i)(I) accept an appointment, if offered, as a commissioned 
     officer in Coast Guard, and, if the member is commissioned as 
     a regular officer and the member's regular commission is 
     terminated before the sixth anniversary of the member's date 
     of rank, the member accept an appointment, if offered, in the 
     Coast Guard reserve and not resign before that anniversary or 
     before such other date, not beyond the eighth anniversary of 
     the member's date of rank, that the Secretary may prescribe; 
     and
       (II) serve on active duty for 4 or more years;
       (ii)(I) accept an appointment, if offered, as a 
     commissioned officer in the Coast Guard; and
       (II) serve in the Coast Guard reserve until the eighth 
     anniversary of the receipt of such appointment, unless 
     otherwise extended under subsection (g)(4), under such terms 
     and conditions as shall be prescribed by the Secretary; or
       (iii)(I) accept an appointment, if offered, as a 
     commissioned officer in the Coast Guard; and
       (II) serve in the Coast Guard reserve until at least the 
     sixth anniversary and, at the discretion of the Secretary, up 
     to the eighth anniversary of the receipt of such appointment, 
     unless such appointment is otherwise extended under 
     subsection (g)(4), under such terms and conditions as may be 
     prescribed by the Secretary.

     The performance of service under subparagraph (E)(ii) or 
     (E)(iii) may include periods of active duty, active duty for 
     training, and other service in an active or inactive status 
     in the Coast Guard reserve, except that performance of 
     service under subparagraph (E)(iii) shall include not less 
     than 2 years of active duty.
       (3) Appointment as officer.--Upon satisfactorily completing 
     the academic and military requirements of the project, a 
     cadet may be appointed as a regular or reserve officer in the 
     grade of second lieutenant or ensign, even if under 21 years 
     of age.
       (4) Date of rank.--The date of rank of officers appointed 
     under this subsection in May or June of any year is the date 
     of graduation of cadets from Coast Guard Academy in that 
     year. The Secretary shall establish the date of rank of all 
     other officers appointed under this subsection.
       (5) Service obligation.--A cadet who does not complete the 
     4-year course of instruction, or who completes the course but 
     declines to accept a commission when offered, may be ordered 
     to active duty by the Secretary to serve in the member's 
     enlisted grade or rating for such period of time as the 
     Secretary prescribes but not for more than 4 years.
       (g) Advanced Standing.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may give to any enlisted 
     member of the Coast Guard, or any person who has served on 
     active duty in any armed force, such advanced standing in the 
     program as may be justified by the member's education and 
     training.
       (2) Eligibility for advanced training.--In determining a 
     member's eligibility for advanced training, the Secretary may 
     credit the member with any military training that is 
     substantially equivalent in kind to that prescribed for 
     admission to advanced training and was received while the 
     member was taking a course of instruction in a program under 
     the jurisdiction of another armed force or while the member 
     was on active duty in the armed forces.
       (3) Excuse from prescribed instruction.--The Secretary may 
     excuse from a portion of the prescribed course of military 
     instruction, including field training and practice cruises, 
     any member found qualified on the basis of the member's 
     previous education, military experience, or both.
       (4) Participation following undergraduate studies.--An 
     individual may become, remain, or be readmitted as, a member 
     of the advanced training program after receiving a 
     baccalaureate degree or completing preprofessional studies if 
     the member has not completed the course of military 
     instruction or all field training or practice cruises 
     prescribed by the Secretary. If a member of the project has 
     been accepted for resident graduate or professional study, 
     the Secretary may delay the commencement of the member's 
     obligated period of active duty, and any obligated period of 
     active duty for training or other service in an active or 
     inactive status in the Coast Reserve, until the member has 
     completed that study.
       (5) Release from project.--The Secretary, if the Secretary 
     determines that the interest of the service so requires, may 
     release any individual from the project and discharge the 
     member from the Coast Guard.
       (h) Miscellaneous Authorities.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may issue to the senior 
     commissioned Coast Guard officer who is assigned to the 
     project, or to the officers of the Coast Guard who are 
     designated as accountable or responsible for such property--
       (A) supplies, means of transportation including aircraft, 
     arms and ammunition, and military textbooks and educational 
     materials; and
       (B) uniform clothing, except that he may pay monetary 
     allowances for uniform clothing at such rate as he may 
     prescribe.
       (2) Flight instruction.--The Secretary may provide, or 
     contract with civilian flying or aviation schools or 
     educational institutions to provide, the personnel, aircraft, 
     supplies, facilities, services, and instruction necessary for 
     flight instruction and orientation for properly designated 
     members of the project.
       (3) Medical care.--The Secretary--
       (A) may transport members of, and designated applicants for 
     membership in, the project to and from installations when it 
     is necessary for them to undergo medical or other 
     examinations or for the purposes of making visits of 
     observation; and
       (B) may furnish to such members subsistence, quarters, and 
     necessary medical care, including hospitalization, while they 
     are at, or traveling to or from, such an installation.
       (4) Participation in flights and cruises.--The Secretary 
     may authorize members of, and designated applicants for 
     membership in, the project to participate in aerial flights 
     in Coast Guard aircraft and in indoctrination cruises in 
     naval vessels.
       (5) Financial assistance.--The Secretary may, to the extent 
     amounts are available, provide for the payment of financial 
     assistance to students participating in the project, 
     including for tuition, fees, books, and laboratory expenses.
       (i) Detail of Reserve Officers.--The Secretary may detail 
     regular or reserve Coast Officers for instructional and 
     administrative duties related to the project.

     SEC. 2__. SHOCK MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Requirements.--Chapter 17 of title 14, United Sates 
     Code, is amended by adding the end the following:

     ``Sec. 675. Shock mitigation requirements

       ``(a) The Secretary shall establish a shock standard for 
     Coast Guard vessels.
       ``(b) The Secretary shall include shock mitigation 
     requirements for boat decking in each procurement of a vessel 
     for the Coast Guard that does not meet the standard 
     established under subsection (a).
       ``(c) Requirements under subsection (a) shall specify the 
     weight and durability of decking material, effects on decking 
     material of repeated use and weather conditions, and the 
     capability of decking material to mitigate impacts.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 17, of title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``675. Shock mitigation requirements.''.

     SEC. 2__. COAST GUARD YARD.

       (a) In General.--Section 648 of title 14, United States 
     Code, is amended by--
       (1) amending the section heading to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 648. Industrial work'';

       (2) inserting ``(a)'' before the existing text; and
       (3) adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) The Commandant may enter into a contract or 
     cooperative agreement with any person for the performance of 
     work on a local, State, or Federal government vessel, or the 
     engine, ordnance, electronics, or other equipment related to 
     such a vessel.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 17 of title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended by amending the item relating to section 648 to read 
     as follows:

``648. Industrial work.''.

     SEC. 2__. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONGRESS BY COMMANDANT OF THE 
                   COAST GUARD.

       Section 93 of title 14, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (w) by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (x) by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(y) after informing the Secretary, make such 
     recommendations to the Congress relating to the Coast Guard 
     as the Commandant considers appropriate.''.

     SEC. 2__. ASSIGNMENT OF OFFICER TO NATIONAL WAR COLLEGE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 7 of title 14, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 152. Assignment of officer to National War College

       ``The Commandant shall assign an officer in the grade of 
     captain to serve as the Coast Guard's Service Chair at the 
     National War College.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents at the 
     beginning of chapter 7 of title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``152. Assignment of officer to National War College.''.

[[Page 27332]]



     SEC. 2__. COAST GUARD EDUCATION LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) Program Authorized.--Chapter 13 of title 14, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after section 471 the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 472. Education loan repayment program

       ``(a)(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the 
     Secretary may repay--
       ``(A) any loan made, insured, or guaranteed under part B of 
     title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1071 
     et seq.);
       ``(B) any loan made under part D of such title (the William 
     D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, 20 U.S.C. 1087a et 
     seq.); or
       ``(C) any loan made under part E of such title (20 U.S.C. 
     1087aa et seq.).

     Repayment of any such loan shall be made on the basis of each 
     complete year of service performed by the borrower.
       ``(2) The Secretary may repay loans described in paragraph 
     (1) in the case of any person for service performed on active 
     duty as an enlisted member of the Coast Guard in a specialty 
     specified by the Secretary.
       ``(b) The portion or amount of a loan that may be repaid 
     under subsection (a) is 33\1/3\ percent or $1,500, whichever 
     is greater, for each year of service.
       ``(c) If a portion of a loan is repaid under this section 
     for any year, interest on the remainder of such loan shall 
     accrue and be paid in the same manner as is otherwise 
     required.
       ``(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
     authorize refunding any repayment of a loan.
       ``(e) The Secretary shall, by regulation, prescribe a 
     schedule for the allocation of funds made available to carry 
     out this section during any year for which funds are not 
     sufficient to pay the sum of the amounts eligible for 
     repayment under subsection (a).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 13 of title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 471 
     the following:

``472. Education loan repayment program.''.
       Strike section 405 (page 25, beginning at line 17).
       At the end of title IV (page 30, after line 21) insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 4__. SERVICE OF FOREIGN NATIONALS FOR MARITIME 
                   EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES.

       Section 8103(b)(1)(A) of title 46, United State Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) each unlicensed seaman must be--
       ``(i) a citizen of the United States;
       ``(ii) an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for 
     permanent residence; or
       ``(iii) a foreign national who is enrolled in the United 
     States Merchant Marine Academy.''.

     SEC. 4__. CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 3316 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c)(1) A person shall not operate in interstate or 
     foreign commerce as a classification society unless the 
     Secretary has reviewed and approved the person with respect 
     to the conduct of those operations.
       ``(2) The Secretary may approve a person for purposes of 
     paragraph (1) only if the Secretary determines that--
       ``(A) the vessels surveyed by the person while acting as a 
     classification society have an adequate safety record; and
       ``(B) the person has an adequate program to--
       ``(i) develop safety standards for vessels surveyed by the 
     person;
       ``(ii) make the safety records of the person available to 
     the Secretary in an electronic format;
       ``(iii) provide the safety records of a vessel surveyed by 
     the person to any other classification society that requests 
     those records for the purpose of conducting a survey of the 
     vessel; and
       ``(iv) request the safety records of a vessel the person 
     will survey from any classification society that previously 
     surveyed the vessel.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall issue regulations implementing 
     this subsection, including regulations describing activities 
     that constitute operation in interstate or foreign commerce 
     as a classification society.''.
       (b) Application.--Section 3316(c)(1) of title 46, United 
     States Code, shall apply with respect to operation as a 
     classification society on or after January 1, 2005.

     SEC. 4__. MEMBERSHIP OF AREA MARITIME SECURITY ADVISORY 
                   COMMITTEES.

       Section 70112(b) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end to following:
       ``(5) Membership of an Area Maritime Security Advisory 
     Committee shall include representatives of the port industry, 
     terminal operators, port labor organizations, and other users 
     of the port areas.''.

     SEC. 4__. SECURITY PLANS.

       Section 70103(c) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``operator of a vessel or facility'' and 
     inserting ``operator of a vessel (including a foreign vessel) 
     or facility''; and
       (B) by striking ``a security plan'' and inserting ``in 
     writing a detailed security plan'';
       (2) in paragraph (5), by striking ``A vessel'' and 
     inserting ``A vessel (including a foreign vessel)'';
       (3) in paragraph (6), by inserting ``(including a foreign 
     vessel)'' after ``authorize a vessel'' ; and
       (4) in paragraph (7), by inserting ``(including a foreign 
     vessel)'' after ``operator of a vessel''.
       Strike section 602 (page 32, beginning at line 21) and 
     insert the following:

     SEC. 602. CONVEYANCE OF DECOMMISSIONED COAST GUARD CUTTERS.

       (a) In General.--The Commandant of the Coast Guard shall 
     convey all right, title, and interest of the United States in 
     and to a vessel described in subsection (b) to the person 
     designated in subsection (b) with respect to the vessel (in 
     this section referred to as the ``recipient''), without 
     consideration, if the person complies with the conditions 
     under subsection (c).
       (b) Vessels Described.--The vessels referred to in 
     subsection (a) are the following:
       (1) The Coast Guard Cutter BRAMBLE, to be conveyed to the 
     Port Huron Museum of Arts and History (a nonprofit 
     corporation under the laws of the State of Michigan), located 
     in Port Huron, Michigan.
       (2) The Coast Guard Cutter PLANETREE, to be conveyed to 
     Jewish Life (a nonprofit corporation under the laws of the 
     State of California), located in Sherman Oaks, California.
       (3) The Coast Guard Cutter SUNDEW, to be conveyed to Duluth 
     Entertainment and Convention Center Authority (a nonprofit 
     corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota), 
     located in Duluth, Minnesota.
       (c) Conditions.--As a condition of any conveyance of a 
     vessel under subsection (a), the Commandant shall require the 
     recipient to--
       (1) agree--
       (A) to use the vessel for purposes of education and 
     historical display;
       (B) not to use the vessel for commercial transportation 
     purposes;
       (C) to make the vessel available to the United States 
     Government if needed for use by the Commandant in time of war 
     or a national emergency; and
       (D) to hold the Government harmless for any claims arising 
     from exposure to hazardous materials, including asbestos and 
     polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), after conveyance of the 
     vessel, except for claims arising from use of the vessel by 
     the Government under subparagraph (C);
       (2) have funds available that will be committed to operate 
     and maintain the vessel conveyed in good working condition--
       (A) in the form of cash, liquid assets, or a written loan 
     commitment; and
       (B) in an amount of at least $700,000; and
       (3) agree to any other conditions the Commandant considers 
     appropriate.
       (d) Maintenance and Delivery of Vessel.--Prior to 
     conveyance of a vessel under this section, the Commandant 
     shall, to the extent practical, and subject to other Coast 
     Guard mission requirements, make every effort to maintain the 
     integrity of the vessel and its equipment until the time of 
     delivery. The Commandant shall deliver a vessel conveyed 
     under this section at the place where the vessel is located, 
     in its present condition, and without cost to the Government. 
     The conveyance of a vessel under this section shall not be 
     considered a distribution in commerce for purposes of section 
     6(e) of Public Law 94-469 (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)).
       (e) Other Excess Equipment.--The Commandant may convey to 
     the recipient of a vessel under this section any excess 
     equipment or parts from other decommissioned Coast Guard 
     vessels for use to enhance the vessel's operability and 
     function as an historical display.
       Strike section 607 (page 38, beginning at line 17) and 
     insert the following:

     SEC. 607. KOSS COVE.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     or existing policy, the cove described in subsection (b) 
     shall be known and designated as ``Koss Cove'', in honor of 
     the late Able Bodied Seaman Eric Steiner Koss of the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration vessel RAINIER who 
     died in the performance of a nautical charting mission off 
     the coast of Alaska.
       (b) Cove Described.--The cove referred to in subsection (a) 
     is--
       (1) adjacent to and southeast of Point Elrington, Alaska, 
     and forms a portion of the southern coast of Elrington 
     Island;
       (2) 3/4 mile across the mouth;
       (3) centered at 59 degrees 56.1 minutes North, 148 degrees 
     14 minutes West; and
       (4) 45 miles from Seward, Alaska.
       (c) References.--Any reference in any law, regulation, 
     document, record, map, or other paper of the United States to 
     the cove described in subsection (b) is deemed to be a 
     reference to Koss Cove.
       Strike section 609 (page 40, beginning at line 3) and 
     insert the following:

     SEC. 609. REGULATIONS.

       No later than February 1, 2004, the Secretary of the 
     department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall 
     implement final regulations to carry out section 12106(e), 
     title 46, United States Code.
       At the end of title VI (page 43, after line 2) insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 6__. CONVEYANCE OF DECOMMISSIONED COAST GUARD VESSELS.

       (a) In General.--Upon the scheduled decommissioning of a 
     Coast Guard vessel listed in subsection (d), the Commandant 
     of the

[[Page 27333]]

     Coast Guard shall convey all right, title, and interest of 
     the United States in and to that vessel to the respective 
     recipient listed in subsection (d) for that vessel, if--
       (1) the recipient agrees--
       (A) to use the vessel for public safety activities;
       (B) not to use the vessel for commercial transportation 
     purposes;
       (C) to make the vessel available to the United States 
     Government if needed for use by the Commandant in time of war 
     or a national emergency; and
       (D) to hold the Government harmless for any claims arising 
     from exposure to hazardous materials, including asbestos and 
     polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), after conveyance of the 
     vessel, except for claims arising from use by the Government 
     under subparagraph (C);
       (2) the recipient has funds available that will be 
     committed to operate and maintain the vessel conveyed in good 
     working condition, in the form of cash, liquid assets, or a 
     written loan commitment; and
       (3) the recipient agrees to any other conditions the 
     Commandant considers appropriate.
       (b) Maintenance and Delivery of Vessel.--Prior to 
     conveyance of the vessel under this section, the Commandant 
     shall, to the extent practical, and subject to other Coast 
     Guard mission requirements, make every effort to maintain the 
     integrity of the vessel and its equipment until the time of 
     delivery. If a conveyance is made under this section, the 
     Commandant shall deliver the vessel at the place where the 
     vessel is located, in its present condition, and without cost 
     to the Government. The conveyance of the vessel under this 
     section shall not be considered a distribution in commerce 
     for purposes of section 6(e) of Public Law 94-469 (15 U.S.C. 
     2605(e)).
       (c) Other Excess Equipment.--The Commandant may convey to 
     the recipient any excess equipment or parts from other 
     decommissioned Coast Guard vessels for use to enhance the 
     vessel's operability and function.
       (d) Vessels and Recipients.--The vessels and recipients 
     referred to in subsection (a) are the following:
       (1) A 21-foot rigid hull Coast Guard vessel, to the Berrien 
     County Sheriff's Department, Berrien County, Michigan.
       (2) A 44-foot motor life boat, to the Port Norris Fire 
     Company, Commercial Township, New Jersey.
       (3) A 44-foot motor life boat, to the City of Margate, New 
     Jersey.
       (4) A 44-foot motor life boat, to the Lower Alloway Creek 
     Fire Company, Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey.
       (5) A 44-foot motor life boat, to the Fortescue Fire Rescue 
     Company 1, Downe Township, New Jersey.
       (6) A 21-foot rigid hull inflatable, to the Longport 
     Volunteer Fire Department, Longport, New Jersey.
       (7) A 21-foot rigid hull inflatable, to West Wildwood Fire 
     Company, West Wildwood, New Jersey.
       (8) A 21-foot rigid hull inflatable, to the San Diego 
     Unified Port District, California.

     SEC. 6__. ASSATEAGUE LIGHTHOUSE LENS.

       The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is 
     operating shall convey to the Oyster and Maritime Museum, 
     located in Chincoteague, Virginia, without consideration, all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the 
     first order Fresnel lens formerly used in the Assateague 
     Lighthouse located on Assateague Island, Virginia.

     SEC. 6__. STUDY OF THE ROLE OF COAST GUARD ICE BREAKERS IN 
                   SUPPORTING UNITED STATES OPERATIONS IN THE 
                   ANTARCTIC AND THE ARCTIC.

       (a) In General.--The Commandant of the Coast Guard may 
     enter into an arrangement with the Polar Research Board and 
     the Marine Board of the National Academy of Sciences to--
       (1) conduct a study of the role of Coast Guard icebreakers 
     in supporting United States operations in the Antarctic and 
     the Arctic, including--
       (A) roles in logistics and material support and a general 
     inventory of contributions to science in both regions;
       (B) alternative methods for staging, supporting, and 
     conducting Arctic and Antarctic activities other than by use 
     of Coast Guard icebreakers;
       (C) the operational status of the POLAR STAR and POLAR SEA, 
     including the projected life expectancy of vessel systems, 
     and strategies for extending the service life of these 
     vessels; and
       (D) key short-term and long-term functions provided by the 
     Coast Guard icebreaker fleet and how these functions might be 
     addressed under different service life extension and 
     replacement scenarios; and
       (2) conduct a study of changes in the roles and missions of 
     Coast Guard icebreakers in the support of future marine 
     operations in the Arctic that may develop due to 
     environmental change, including--
       (A) the amount and kind of icebreaking support that may be 
     required in the future to support marine operations in the 
     Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage;
       (B) the suitability of the Polar Class icebreakers for 
     these new roles; and
       (C) appropriate changes in existing laws governing Coast 
     Guard icebreaking operations and the potential for new 
     operating regimes.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of the Act, the Commandant shall submit a report on 
     the studies required under subsection (a) to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate.
       (c) Charge for Icebreaking Services.--After the date on 
     which the Commandant submits the report under subsection (b), 
     and notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary 
     of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating may 
     charge other Federal agencies for the Secretary's cost of 
     providing icebreaking and related transportation services to 
     those agencies.

     SEC. 6__. CORRECTION OF REFERENCES TO NATIONAL DRIVER 
                   REGISTER.

       Title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in section 7302--
       (A) by striking ``section 206(b)(7) of the National Driver 
     Register Act of 1982 (23 U.S.C. 401 note)'' and inserting 
     ``30305(b)(5) of title 49''; and
       (B) by striking ``section 205(a)(3)(A) or (B) of that Act'' 
     and inserting ``30304(a)(3)(A) or (B) of title 49'';
       (2) in section 7702(d)(1)(B)(iii) by striking ``section 
     205(a)(3)(A) or (B) of the National Driver Register Act of 
     1982'' and inserting ``section 30304(a)(3)(A) or (B) of title 
     49''; and
       (3) in section 7703(3) by striking ``section 205(a)(3)(A) 
     or (B) of the National Driver Register Act of 1982'' and 
     inserting ``section 30304(a)(3)(A) or (B) of title 49''.

     SEC. 6__. WATEREE RIVER.

       For purposes of bridge administration, the portion of the 
     Wateree River in the State of South Carolina, from a point 
     100 feet upstream of the railroad bridge located at 
     approximately mile marker 10.0 to a point 100 feet downstream 
     of such bridge, is declared to not be navigable waters of the 
     United States for purposes of the General Bridge Act of 1946 
     (33 U.S.C. 525 et seq.).

     SEC. 6__. ALASKA MERCHANT MARINERS' DOCUMENTS PILOT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the department in which 
     the Coast Guard is operating shall conduct a pilot program in 
     the 17th Coast Guard District to demonstrate methods to 
     improve processing and procedures for issuing merchant 
     mariners' documents.
       (b) Use of Existing Tools.--Before conducting the pilot 
     program authorized under subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     consult with the Secretary of the Air Force regarding the 
     efficiency and effectiveness of the content management 
     technology and information management tools that are 
     currently used by the department of the Air Force in the Air 
     Force Publishing Directorate.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of the department in 
     which the Coast Guard is operating $5,000,000 to carry out 
     the pilot program under subsection (a).

     SEC. 6__. CONVEYANCE OF SENTINEL ISLAND LIGHT STATION, 
                   ALASKA.

       (a) Authority To Convey.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard 
     is operating shall convey, by an appropriate means of 
     conveyance, all right, title, and interest of the United 
     States in and to the Sentinel Island Light Station and 
     Sentinel Island, Alaska, to the Gastineau Channel Historical 
     Society.
       (2) Identification of property.--The Secretary may 
     identify, describe, and determine the property to be conveyed 
     under this subsection.
       (3) Limitation.--The Secretary may not under this section 
     convey--
       (A) any historical artifact, including any lens or lantern, 
     located on property conveyed under this section at or before 
     the time of the conveyance; or
       (B) any interest in submerged land.
       (b) General Terms and Conditions.--
       (1) In general.--Any conveyance of property under this 
     section shall be made--
       (A) without payment of consideration; and
       (B) subject to the terms and conditions required by this 
     section and other terms and conditions the Secretary may 
     consider appropriate, including the reservation of easements 
     and other rights on behalf of the United States.
       (2) Reversionary interest.--In addition to any term or 
     condition established under this section, any conveyance of 
     property under this section shall be subject to the condition 
     that all right, title, and interest in the property, at the 
     option of the Secretary shall revert to the United States and 
     be placed under the administrative control of the Secretary, 
     if--
       (A) the property, or any part of the property--
       (i) ceases to be available and accessible to the public, on 
     a reasonable basis, for educational, park, recreational, 
     cultural, historic preservation, or other similar purposes 
     specified for the property in the terms of conveyance;
       (ii) ceases to be maintained in a manner that is consistent 
     with its present or future use as a site for Coast Guard aids 
     to navigation or compliance with this section; or

[[Page 27334]]

       (iii) ceases to be maintained in a manner consistent with 
     the conditions in paragraph (4) established by the Secretary 
     pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 
     470 et seq.); or
       (B) at least 30 days before that reversion, the Secretary 
     provides written notice to the owner that the property is 
     needed for national security purposes.
       (3) Maintenance of navigation functions.--Any conveyance of 
     property under this section shall be made subject to the 
     conditions that the Secretary considers to be necessary to 
     assure that--
       (A) the lights, antennas, and associated equipment located 
     on the property conveyed that are active aids to navigation 
     shall continue to be operated and maintained by the United 
     States for as long as they are needed for this purpose;
       (B) the owner of the property may not interfere or allow 
     interference in any manner with aids to navigation without 
     express written permission from the Commandant of the Coast 
     Guard;
       (C) there is reserved to the United States the right to 
     relocate, replace, or add any aids to navigation or make any 
     changes to the property conveyed as may be necessary for 
     navigational purposes;
       (D) the United States shall have the right, at any time, to 
     enter the property without notice for the purpose of 
     operating, maintaining, and inspecting aids to navigation and 
     for the purpose of enforcing compliance with this subsection; 
     and
       (E) the United States shall have an easement of access to 
     and across the property for the purpose of maintaining the 
     aids to navigation in use on the property.
       (4) Maintenance of property.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the owner of 
     a property conveyed under this section shall maintain the 
     property in a proper, substantial, and workmanlike manner, 
     and in accordance with any conditions established by the 
     Secretary pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and other applicable laws.
       (B) Limitation.--The owner of a property conveyed under 
     this section is not required to maintain any active aids to 
     navigation on the property, except private aids to navigation 
     authorized under section 83 of title 14, United States Code.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Aids to navigation.--The term ``aids to navigation'' 
     means equipment used for navigation purposes, including a 
     light, antenna, radio, sound signal, electronic navigation 
     equipment, or other associated equipment that are operated or 
     maintained by the United States.
       (2) Owner.--The term ``owner'' means, for property conveyed 
     under this section, the person to which property is conveyed 
     under subsection (a)(1), and any successor or assign of that 
     person.

     SEC. 6__. MARITIME INTELLIGENCE AND LONG-RANGE VESSEL 
                   TRACKING SYSTEM.

       (a) Maritime Intelligence.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of the department in 
     which the Coast Guard is operating $25,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2004 to implement a system to carry out section 70113(a) 
     of title 46, United States Code.
       (2) System requirement.--Any system implemented with 
     amounts made available under this subsection shall--
       (A) include a vessel terrorism risk profiling system that 
     assigns incoming vessels a risk rating; and
       (B) be based on independently verified intelligence data.
       (b) Vessel Tracking System.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Department in 
     which the Coast Guard is operating $12,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2004 to carry out section 70115 of title 46, United 
     States Code.
       (2) System requirements.--Any automated vessel tracking 
     system implemented with amounts made available under this 
     subsection shall be operated by an existing nonprofit 
     maritime organization that--
       (A) operates satellite communications systems, and vessel 
     tracking software and hardware; and
       (B) can have nationwide vessel tracking capability in 
     operation by no later than 90 days after the date the 
     organization enters into a contract with the Coast Guard to 
     establish and operate the system.

     SEC. 6__. COLUMBIA SLOUGH.

       Section 325 of Public Law 97-369 (96 Stat. 1785) is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 6__. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING CARBON MONOXIDE AND 
                   WATERCRAFT.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the Coast Guard should 
     continue--
       (1) to place a high priority on addressing the safety risks 
     posed to boaters by elevated levels of carbon monoxide that 
     are unique to watercraft; and
       (2) to work with vessel and engine manufacturers, the 
     American Boat & Yacht Council, other Federal agencies, and 
     the entire boating community in order to determine the best 
     ways to adequately address this public safety issue and 
     minimize the number of tragic carbon monoxide-related boating 
     deaths that occur each year.

     SEC. 6__. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING NAMING NEW VESSELS 
                   UNDER THE DEEPWATER PROGRAM FOR CITIES OF THE 
                   UNITED STATES.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the Coast Guard should 
     consider including in its naming protocols for new vessels 
     constructed under the Deepwater Program the names of cities 
     of the United States and its territories and possessions.

     SEC. 6__. PORT SECURITY GRANT AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Section 70107 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``Secretary of 
     Transportation, acting through the Maritime Administrator,'' 
     and inserting ``Secretary, acting through the Commandant of 
     the Coast Guard,'';
       (2) by striking ``Secretary of Transportation'' each place 
     it appears and inserting ``Secretary, acting through the 
     Commandant of the Coast Guard,''; and
       (3) by striking ``Department of Transportation'' each place 
     it appears and inserting ``department in which the Coast 
     Guard is operating''.
       (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a)--
       (1) shall take effect October 1, 2004; and
       (2) shall not affect any grant made before that date.

     SEC. 6__. SECURITY ASSESSMENT OF INDIAN POINT ENERGY CENTER.

       Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast 
     Guard is operating shall--
       (1) conduct a vulnerability assessment under section 
     70102(b) of title 46, United States Code, of the navigable 
     waters adjacent to Indian Point Energy Center, located in 
     Westchester County, New York; and
       (2) submit a report on that assessment to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science and 
     Transportation of the Senate.

     SEC. 6__. MITIGATION OF PENALTY DUE TO AVOIDANCE OF A CERTAIN 
                   HAZARDOUS CONDITION.

       (a) Treatment of Violation.--For purposes of any 
     administrative proceeding to consider mitigation of any civil 
     penalty for a violation described in subsection (b), such 
     violation is deemed to have been committed by reason of a 
     safety concern.
       (b) Violation Described.--A violation referred to in 
     subsection (a) is any violation of the Act of June 19, 1886 
     (chapter 421; 46 App. U.S.C. 289), occurring before August 1, 
     2003, and consisting of operation of a passenger vessel in 
     transporting passengers--
       (1) between the Port of New Orleans and another port on the 
     Gulf of Mexico at a time when the power lines across the 
     Mississippi River at Chalmette, Louisiana, are a hazard to 
     the safe return transport of passengers on that vessel to the 
     Port of New Orleans; or
       (2) in repositioning the vessel to the Port of New Orleans 
     after that hazard is temporarily resolved.

     SEC. 6__. DESIGNATION OF EMPRESS OF THE NORTH AS A TOUR 
                   VESSEL.

       Notwithstanding any other law, the passenger vessel EMPRESS 
     OF THE NORTH (United States official number 1140867) is 
     deemed to be a tour vessel for the purpose of the regulations 
     promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior under section 
     3(h) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-2(h)) and section 3 
     of the Act of August 25, 1916 (16 U.S.C. 3), with respect to 
     vessel operations in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, 
     Alaska.

     SEC. 6__. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING TIMELY REVIEW AND 
                   ADJUSTMENT OF GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE RATES.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of the 
     department in which the Coast Guard is operating should, on a 
     timely basis, review and adjust the rates payable under part 
     401 of title 46, Code of Federal Regulations, for services 
     performed by United States registered pilots on the Great 
     Lakes.
       Strike section 703 (page 46, beginning at line 19) and 
     insert the following:

     SEC. 703. LIABILITY AND COST RECOVERY.

       (a) Definition of Owner or Operator.--Section 1001(26) of 
     the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701(26)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(26) `owner or operator'--
       ``(A) means--
       ``(i) in the case of a vessel, any person owning, 
     operating, or chartering by demise, the vessel;
       ``(ii) in the case of an onshore or offshore facility, any 
     person owning or operating such facility;
       ``(iii) in the case of any abandoned offshore facility, the 
     person who owned or operated such facility immediately prior 
     to such abandonment;
       ``(iv) in the case of any facility, title or control of 
     which was conveyed due to bankruptcy, foreclosure, tax 
     delinquency, abandonment, or similar means to a unit of State 
     or local government, any person who owned, operated, or 
     otherwise controlled activities at such facility immediately 
     beforehand;
       ``(v) notwithstanding subparagraph (B)(i), any State or 
     local government that has caused or contributed to a 
     discharge or substantial threat of a discharge of oil from a 
     vessel or facility ownership or control of which was acquired 
     involuntarily through bankruptcy, tax delinquency, 
     abandonment,

[[Page 27335]]

     or other circumstances in which the government involuntarily 
     acquires title by virtue of its function as sovereign; and
       ``(vi) notwithstanding subparagraph (B)(ii), a person that 
     is a lender and that holds indicia of ownership primarily to 
     protect a security interest in a vessel or facility if, while 
     the borrower is still in possession of the vessel or facility 
     encumbered by the security interest, the person--

       ``(I) exercises decisionmaking control over the 
     environmental compliance related to the vessel or facility, 
     such that the person has undertaken responsibility for oil 
     handling or disposal practices related to the vessel or 
     facility; or
       ``(II) exercises control at a level comparable to that of a 
     manager of the vessel or facility, such that the person has 
     assumed or manifested responsibility--

       ``(aa) for the overall management of the vessel or facility 
     encompassing day-to-day decisionmaking with respect to 
     environmental compliance; or
       ``(bb) over all or substantially all of the operational 
     functions (as distinguished from financial or administrative 
     functions) of the vessel or facility other than the function 
     of environmental compliance; and
       ``(B) does not include--
       ``(i) a unit of State or local government that acquired 
     ownership or control of a vessel or facility involuntarily 
     through bankruptcy, tax delinquency, abandonment, or other 
     circumstances in which the government involuntarily acquires 
     title by virtue of its function as sovereign;
       ``(ii) a person that is a lender that does not participate 
     in management of a vessel or facility, but holds indicia of 
     ownership primarily to protect the security interest of the 
     person in the vessel or facility; or
       ``(iii) a person that is a lender that did not participate 
     in management of a vessel or facility prior to foreclosure, 
     notwithstanding that the person--

       ``(I) forecloses on the vessel or facility; and
       ``(II) after foreclosure, sells, re-leases (in the case of 
     a lease finance transaction), or liquidates the vessel or 
     facility, maintains business activities, winds up operations, 
     undertakes a removal action under 311(c) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 311(c)) or under the 
     direction of an on-scene coordinator appointed under the 
     National Contingency Plan, with respect to the vessel or 
     facility, or takes any other measure to preserve, protect, or 
     prepare the vessel or facility prior to sale or disposition,

     if the person seeks to sell, re-lease (in the case of a lease 
     finance transaction), or otherwise divest the person of the 
     vessel or facility at the earliest practicable, commercially 
     reasonable time, on commercially reasonable terms, taking 
     into account market conditions and legal and regulatory 
     requirements;''.
       (b) Other Definitions.--Section 1001 of the Oil Pollution 
     Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701) is amended by striking ``and'' 
     after the semicolon at the end of paragraph (36), by striking 
     the period at the end of paragraph (37) and inserting a 
     semicolon, and by adding at the end the following:
       ``(38) `participate in management'--
       ``(A)(i) means actually participating in the management or 
     operational affairs of a vessel or facility; and
       ``(ii) does not include merely having the capacity to 
     influence, or the unexercised right to control, vessel or 
     facility operations; and
       ``(B) does not include--
       ``(i) performing an act or failing to act prior to the time 
     at which a security interest is created in a vessel or 
     facility;
       ``(ii) holding a security interest or abandoning or 
     releasing a security interest;
       ``(iii) including in the terms of an extension of credit, 
     or in a contract or security agreement relating to the 
     extension, a covenant, warranty, or other term or condition 
     that relates to environmental compliance;
       ``(iv) monitoring or enforcing the terms and conditions of 
     the extension of credit or security interest;
       ``(v) monitoring or undertaking one or more inspections of 
     the vessel or facility;
       ``(vi) requiring a removal action or other lawful means of 
     addressing a discharge or substantial threat of a discharge 
     of oil in connection with the vessel or facility prior to, 
     during, or on the expiration of the term of the extension of 
     credit;
       ``(vii) providing financial or other advice or counseling 
     in an effort to mitigate, prevent, or cure default or 
     diminution in the value of the vessel or facility;
       ``(viii) restructuring, renegotiating, or otherwise 
     agreeing to alter the terms and conditions of the extension 
     of credit or security interest, exercising forbearance;
       ``(ix) exercising other remedies that may be available 
     under applicable law for the breach of a term or condition of 
     the extension of credit or security agreement; or
       ``(x) conducting a removal action under 311(c) of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(c)) or 
     under the direction of an on-scene coordinator appointed 
     under the National Contingency Plan,

     if such actions do not rise to the level of participating in 
     management under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph and 
     paragraph (26)(A)(vi);
       ``(39) `extension of credit' has the meaning provided in 
     section 101(20)(G)(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9601(20)(G)(i));
       ``(40) `financial or administrative function' has the 
     meaning provided in section 101(20)(G)(ii) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601(20)(G)(ii));
       ``(41) `foreclosure' and `foreclose' each has the meaning 
     provided in section 101(20)(G)(iii) of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601(20)(G)(iii));
       ``(42) `lender' has the meaning provided in section 
     101(20)(G)(iv) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9601(20)(G)(iv));
       ``(43) `operational function' has the meaning provided in 
     section 101(20)(G)(v) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9601(20)(G)(v)); and
       ``(44) `security interest' has the meaning provided in 
     section 101(20)(G)(vi) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9601(20)(G)(vi)).''.
        (c) Definition of Contractual Relationship.--Section 1003 
     of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2703) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Definition of Contractual Relationship.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a)(3) the 
     term `contractual relationship' includes, but is not limited 
     to, land contracts, deeds, easements, leases, or other 
     instruments transferring title or possession, unless--
       ``(A) the real property on which the facility concerned is 
     located was acquired by the responsible party after the 
     discharge of the oil on, in, or at the facility;
       ``(B) one or more of the circumstances described in 
     subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (2) is established 
     by the responsible party by a preponderance of the evidence; 
     and
       ``(C) the responsible party complies with paragraph (3).
       ``(2) required circumstance.--The circumstances referred to 
     in paragraph (1)(B) are the following:
       ``(A) At the time the responsible party acquired the real 
     property on which the facility is located the responsible 
     party did not know and had no reason to know that oil that is 
     the subject of the discharge or substantial threat of 
     discharge was located on, in, or at the facility.
       ``(B) The responsible party is a government entity that 
     acquired the facility--
       ``(i) by escheat;
       ``(ii) through any other involuntary transfer or 
     acquisition; or
       ``(iii) through the exercise of eminent domain authority by 
     purchase or condemnation.
       ``(C) The responsible party acquired the facility by 
     inheritance or bequest.
       ``(3) Additional requirements.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1)(C), the responsible party must establish by a 
     preponderance of the evidence that the responsible party--
       ``(A) has satisfied the requirements of section 
     1003(a)(3)(A) and (B);
       ``(B) has provided full cooperation, assistance, and 
     facility access to the persons that are authorized to conduct 
     removal actions, including the cooperation and access 
     necessary for the installation, integrity, operation, and 
     maintenance of any complete or partial removal action;
       ``(C) is in compliance with any land use restrictions 
     established or relied on in connection with the removal 
     action; and
       ``(D) has not impeded the effectiveness or integrity of any 
     institutional control employed in connection with the removal 
     action.
       ``(4) Reason to know.--
       ``(A) Appropriate inquiries.--To establish that the 
     responsible party had no reason to know of the matter 
     described in paragraph (2)(A), the responsible party must 
     demonstrate that--
       ``(i) on or before the date on which the responsible party 
     acquired the real property on which the facility is located, 
     the responsible party carried out all appropriate inquiries, 
     as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (D), into the previous 
     ownership and uses of the real property on which the facility 
     is located in accordance with generally accepted good 
     commercial and customary standards and practices; and
       ``(ii) the responsible party took reasonable steps to--

       ``(I) stop any continuing discharge;
       ``(II) prevent, minimize or mitigate any substantial threat 
     of discharge; and
       ``(III) prevent or limit any human, environmental, or 
     natural resource exposure to any previously discharged oil.

       ``(B) Regulations establishing standards and practices.--
     Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
     this paragraph, the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall 
     by regulation establish standards and practices for the 
     purpose of satisfying the requirement to carry out all 
     appropriate inquiries under subparagraph (A).

[[Page 27336]]

       ``(C) Criteria.--In promulgating regulations that establish 
     the standards and practices referred to in subparagraph (B), 
     the Secretary shall include in such standards and practices 
     provisions regarding each of the following:
       ``(i) The results of an inquiry by an environmental 
     professional.
       ``(ii) Interviews with past and present owners, operators, 
     and occupants of the facility and the real property on which 
     the facility is located for the purpose of gathering 
     information regarding the potential for contamination at the 
     facility and on the real property on which the facility is 
     located.
       ``(iii) Reviews of historical sources, including, to the 
     extent available, chain of title documents, aerial 
     photographs, building department records, and land use 
     records, to determine previous uses and occupancies of the 
     real property on which the facility is located since the 
     property was first developed.
       ``(iv) Searches for recorded environmental cleanup liens 
     against the facility and the real property on which the 
     facility is located that are filed under Federal, State, or 
     local law.
       ``(v) Reviews of Federal, State, and local government 
     records, waste disposal records, underground storage tank 
     records, and waste handling, generation, treatment, disposal, 
     and spill records, concerning contamination at or near the 
     facility and on the real property on which the facility is 
     located.
       ``(vi) Visual inspections of the facility, the real 
     property on which the facility is located, and adjoining 
     properties.
       ``(vii) Specialized knowledge or experience on the part of 
     the responsible party.
       ``(viii) The relationship of the purchase price to the 
     value of the facility and the real property on which the 
     facility is located, if the facility or the real property was 
     not contaminated.
       ``(ix) Commonly known or reasonably ascertainable 
     information about the facility and the real property on which 
     the facility is located.
       ``(x) The degree of obviousness of the presence or likely 
     presence of contamination at the facility and on the real 
     property on which the facility is located, and the ability to 
     detect contamination by appropriate investigation.
       ``(D) Interim standards and practices.--
       ``(i) Real property purchased before may 31, 1997.--With 
     respect to real property purchased before May 31, 1997, in 
     making a determination with respect to a responsible party 
     described in subparagraph (A), a court or appropriate 
     official shall take into account--

       ``(I) any specialized knowledge or experience on the part 
     of the responsible party;
       ``(II) the relationship of the purchase price to the value 
     of the facility and the real property on which the facility 
     is located, if the facility or the real property was not 
     contaminated;
       ``(III) commonly known or reasonably ascertainable 
     information about the facility and the real property on which 
     the facility is located;
       ``(IV) the obviousness of the presence or likely presence 
     of contamination at the facility and on the real property on 
     which the facility is located; and
       ``(V) the ability of the responsible party to detect 
     contamination by appropriate inspection.

       ``(ii) Real property purchased on or after may 31, 1997.--
     With respect to real property purchased on or after May 31, 
     1997, until the Secretary promulgates the regulations 
     described in clause (ii), the procedures of the American 
     Society for Testing and Materials, including the document 
     known as `Standard E1527-97', entitled `Standard Practice for 
     Environmental Site Assessment: Phase I Environmental Site 
     Assessment Process', shall satisfy the requirements in 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(E) Site inspection and title search.--In the case of 
     real property for residential use or other similar use 
     purchased by a nongovernmental or noncommercial entity, 
     inspection and title search of the facility and the real 
     property on which the facility is located that reveal no 
     basis for further investigation shall be considered to 
     satisfy the requirements of this paragraph.
       ``(5) Previous owner or operator.--Nothing in this 
     paragraph or in section 1003(a)(3) shall diminish the 
     liability of any previous owner or operator of such facility 
     who would otherwise be liable under this Act. Notwithstanding 
     this paragraph, if a responsible party obtained actual 
     knowledge of the discharge or substantial threat of discharge 
     of oil at such facility when the responsible party owned the 
     facility and then subsequently transferred ownership of the 
     facility or the real property on which the facility is 
     located to another person without disclosing such knowledge, 
     the responsible party shall be treated as liable under 
     1002(a) and no defense under section 1003(a) shall be 
     available to such responsible party.
       ``(6) Limitation on defense.--Nothing in this paragraph 
     shall affect the liability under this Act of a responsible 
     party who, by any act or omission, caused or contributed to 
     the discharge or substantial threat of discharge of oil which 
     is the subject of the action relating to the facility.''.

     SEC. 704. OIL SPILL RECOVERY INSTITUTE.

       (a) Termination of Funding for Institute.--Section 5001(i) 
     of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2731(i)) is 
     amended by striking ``September 30, 2012'' and inserting 
     ``one year after the Secretary of the department in which the 
     Coast Guard is operating, in consultation with the Secretary 
     of the Interior, determines that oil and gas exploration, 
     development, and production in Alaska have ceased''.
       (b) Use of Funding for Section 1012 of OPA.--Subsection (c) 
     of section 5006 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, as added by 
     section 1102(b)(4) of Public Law 104-324 (110 Stat. 3965; 33 
     U.S.C. 2736(c)), is amended by striking ``with the eleventh 
     year following the date of enactment of the Coast Guard 
     Authorization Act of 1996,'' and inserting ``one year after 
     the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is 
     operating, in consultation with the Secretary of the 
     Interior, determines that oil and gas exploration, 
     development, and production in Alaska have ceased,''.

     SEC. 705. ALTERNATIVES.

       Section 4115(e)(3) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (46 
     U.S.C. 3703a note) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) No later than one year after the date of enactment of 
     the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2003, the 
     Secretary shall, taking into account the recommendations 
     contained in the report by the Marine Board of the National 
     Research Council entitled `Environmental Performance of 
     Tanker Design in Collision and Grounding' and dated 2001, 
     establish and publish an environmental equivalency evaluation 
     index (including the methodology to develop that index) to 
     assess overall outflow performance due to collisions and 
     groundings for double hull tank vessels and alternative hull 
     designs.''.
       At the end of title VI (page 43, after line 2) insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 6__. PRIORITY FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS IN 
                   MAKING GRANTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SECURITY 
                   PLANS.

       Section 70107(e) of title 46, United State Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Priority for public transportation systems.--
       ``(A) Priority.--In making grants under subsection (a) the 
     Secretary of Transportation shall give priority to otherwise 
     eligible projects concerning implementation of security plans 
     with respect to public transportation systems.
       ``(B) Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue regulations 
     establishing procedures and requirements for awarding grants 
     pursuant to the priority required by this paragraph.''.

  Mr. LoBIONDO (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Madam Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment which has 
been worked out with the minority to make changes from the reported 
bill.
  In addition to reaching an agreement with the full committee ranking 
Democratic member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the 
amendment includes provisions that have been proposed by the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Engel), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hostettler), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock), the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Gilchrest), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Harman), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Upton), and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Inslee). I appreciate the interest of all of these Members in this 
bill, and I look forward to their support today.
  The amendment restructures the authorization to match the format used 
in the appropriation measure which funds the Coast Guard. It also makes 
changes to laws governing management of the Coast Guard. The amendment 
protects the Coast Guardsmen while they are forced to use disabling 
fire. It also authorizes a Coast Guard ROTC pilot program, allows the 
Coast Guard yard to work with private firms on government ship repair 
jobs, and allows the commandant to make recommendations directly to 
Congress.
  The amendment also makes changes to shipping laws. It sets standards 
for vessel classification societies operating

[[Page 27337]]

in the United States, and specifies membership in maritime security 
advisory committees.
  Finally, the amendment contains other numerous issues of interest to 
members. It allows the Coast Guard to convey certain property it no 
longer uses, requires long-overdue regulations to be published by 
February 1, 2004, mandates a National Academy of Science study of 
future polar icebreaking needs, establishes a pilot project for 
improving the technology related to issuing merchant mariners' 
documents. It also authorizes funds to implement an intelligence-based 
vessel profiling system and a long-rang automated vessel tracking 
system for vessels operating in U.S. waters, and expresses the sense of 
Congress that Coast Guard should address safety risks posed by elevated 
levels of carbon monoxide in recreational vessels.
  Again, this amendment has been worked out on a bipartisan basis. It 
incorporates numerous provisions sought by Members of both parties. It 
also makes improvements to U.S. maritime policy and Coast Guard 
management. I urge Members to vote in favor of this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I think the gentleman made a 
very good point about the bipartisan bill. As the gentleman read 
Members' names off of amendments that were worked out, it shows we can 
work together and that there is a good relationship between the 
majority and the minority. In fact, some of those amendments, if there 
was any hostility, I would not have accepted by some of the Members; 
but because we tried to work out the differences, I believe we have 
come out with a very good bill.
  Again, I want to thank the subcommittee chairman and the ranking 
member for their work on this legislation, understanding there will be 
some discussion on other amendments. Overall, we have settled every 
difficult amendment prior to coming to the floor. That is one thing I 
pride this committee on, is working behind the scenes, in front of the 
scenes, and making sure the scene is finally done. And this bill does 
it, and I compliment the gentlemen. I also thank the staff who worked 
very hard on this legislation over the past 6 to 8 months. We have come 
out with a very good product.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  The amendment addresses a number of issues. It is always a puzzle to 
people, if we bring a bill to the floor, why do we have a manager's 
amendment? Well, because from the time the bill leaves the committee 
and gets to the floor, there are issues that either were fermenting and 
developing or that arose from the time the committee reports a bill, 
and that is the case here.
  We first have the Reserve Officer Training Program for Coast Guard 
officers that is established in the context of this manager's 
amendment, requiring all of the classification societies, including 
foreign classification societies, that want to do business in the 
United States, directly or indirectly through agents, to be licensed by 
the Coast Guard. We clarify that foreign flag vessels have to have 
security plans submitted to the Coast Guard in writing and may not 
operate after July 1, 2004, unless those plans have been reviewed and 
approved by the Coast Guard. A provision from the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) to transfer responsibility for port 
security grants from DOT to Coast Guard in the Department of Homeland 
Security, that is a procedural matter; and the matter raised by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), which he adequately discussed just 
a moment ago on the Indian Point nuclear energy facility.
  Finally, we will not have to deal with the issue of the authority in 
the basic bill for the Coast Guard to suspend or revoke a license if 
the mariner has been found to have operated a vessel in a negligent 
manner, or to have interfered with the safe operation of a vessel, 
endangering life or property. That has been discussed.
  I think this manager's amendment does all of the right things and 
does what a manager's amendment is supposed to do. I appreciate the 
work of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo). And as he and the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) have noted, we have had full 
participation and discussion between the majority and the minority on 
this matter in the historic tradition of our committee.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of a provision authored 
by my colleague and good friend from New York, Eliot Engel, and 
included in the Manager's amendment. The provision would close a 
critical security loophole by requiring the Coast Guard to conduct a 
vulnerability assessment of the Indian Point Energy Center in Buchanan, 
NY.
  Since September 11, 2001, intelligence officials have amassed a 
critical body of evidence suggesting terrorist intentions to strike our 
nuclear infrastructure. Plans of U.S. nuclear facilities were 
discovered in Al Qaeda caves during U.S. military operations in 
Afghanistan. Most recently, reports of a terrorist plan to sabotage the 
Palo Verde nuclear power plants in Arizona were sufficiently serious 
that the National Guard was immediately deployed to secure the plant.
  The public health and economic consequences of an attack on a nuclear 
power plant are almost too chilling to contemplate. Congressman Engel 
and I, whose districts abut Indian Point on the eastern banks of the 
Hudson River in Buchanan, have been briefed in detail on these 
scenarios. In 1982, the NRC commissioned a study which found that a 
meltdown at Indian Point--which lies within 50 miles of 21 million 
people--could lead to 123,000 short- and long-term deaths, over 300,000 
injuries, and property damages conservatively estimated at over $1 
trillion. Factoring the fourfold increase in property values in the New 
York metropolitan area since the study, the damages for our region 
could reach $2.3 trillion.
  These devastating impacts justify the strongest possible security 
posture. While the NRC has required power plants to erect road 
barriers, increase the distance between security check points and the 
plants, and add perimeter fencing, the Commission has neglected the 
possibility of a waterborne attack. Cooperation and coordination 
between the Coast Guard and private security teams at the plant is 
lacking. Indeed, in July, 2003, the NRC aborted a force-on-force test 
at the plants when Coast Guard personnel, who had not been previously 
informed of the drill, threatened to use their live ammo against the 
mock attackers.
  In October, 2002, Riverkeeper, a local nuclear watchdog group, 
approached Indian Point in a small boat. A Naval Militia cutter, manned 
by two officers, stopped them well outside of the security buoys. 
During the encounter, terrorists could have easily snuck behind the 
distracted militia boat and struck the unprotected plants. Moreover, 
neither of the militia officers carried weapons--only radios. Needless 
to say, their poorly maintained boat, which actually broke down as they 
returned to shore, would have been quickly overwhelmed by a well-armed 
attacking force.
  The Indian Point episode vividly illustrates the need for a thorough 
assessment by the Coast Guard of the plant's security plans.
  The NRC's casual dismissal of waterborne threats constitutes, in my 
estimation, a glaring oversight. We underestimate terrorists' 
capabilities at our own peril. In a recent article, maritime security 
expert Vijay Sakhuja notes that Al Qaeda and other international 
terrorist organizations possess ``substantial maritime capabilities'' 
and have developed the ``capacity to disrupt and even destroy regional 
maritime infrastructure.'' The article discusses in detail Al Qaeda's 
perfection of ``kamikaze'' tactics.
  We can no longer afford to leave water approaches to nuclear reactors 
unprotected. The Coast Guard must carefully review Indian Point's 
security plans now to prevent a future terrorist attack.
  I want to again thank my good friend Eliot Engel for his leadership 
on this issue, and urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there any further debate on the 
amendment?
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. DeFazio:
       Page 21, line 9, strike the close quotation marks and the 
     following period.
       Page 21, after line 9, insert the following:
       ``(e) Restriction on Location.--The museum established 
     under this section may not

[[Page 27338]]

     be located on any property that is condemned or taken after 
     December 31, 1999, by eminent domain by the Federal 
     Government, by a State or local government, or by any other 
     person acting under a delegation of authority from a State or 
     local government.''.

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chairman, as was discussed earlier, there were 
issues that arose. At least in my case I was contacted by an attorney 
representing a number of homeowners, Mr. Scott Bullock of the Institute 
for Justice, after the committee mark. I have discussed this with a 
number of members of the committee.
  This is a simple amendment, and there seems to be some consensus on 
the objective. The problem is that the bill has no statement regarding 
the issue of eminent domain. It is silent on that issue. In fact, that 
was confirmed in a letter that I received today from the Chamber of 
Commerce of Eastern Connecticut, which says the bill does not address 
the issue of eminent domain and we believe it should be left to the 
local judicial process.
  Certainly condemnation of property in New London, Connecticut, should 
be left to the local judicial process; but the issue of whether or not 
a Federal facility, the Coast Guard Museum, might be sited on property 
taken by eminent domain is the business of this Congress and this 
committee.
  I feel strongly about this issue. We have families that have lived 
for generations on this site. I have letters from five people who are 
affected homeowners, but this is from the son of one: ``My great-
grandmother's family moved to this neighborhood from northern Italy in 
the 1890s. My mother was born in her house at 87 Wabach Street in 1918, 
never lived anywhere else. She married my father, a merchant marine in 
World War II in 1945. They have lived in the house for 56 years. She 
has seen three of her four children die in this property, including her 
first. These houses are not simply buildings on a plot of land, but 
home for her with a lifetime of memories. I live with my wife, son, and 
niece in a home right next door.'' The letter has other sections that 
are pertinent.
  I will just read one other letter: ``I hope all Members of Congress 
will recognize that if the Coast Guard Museum is ultimately built on 
property that has been taken through eminent domain, it will be forever 
tainted. There is no honor in kicking my mother, an 85-year-old woman, 
or my father, who fought for this country in World War II, out of the 
only home she has ever known to make room for a museum that celebrates 
the past, present, and future of the Coast Guard, a service whose 
history is steeped in honor and integrity.''
  That is the issue before this body. It is quite simple. The bill is 
silent on this issue. A proceeding has begun locally, and that is up to 
the local jurisdiction to take this property by eminent domain with the 
idea that the museum would be sited there. The commandant of the Coast 
Guard, I have been told, says they do not want to take property by 
eminent domain. I would hope it would also mean that they do not want 
the museum to ever be sited on property that was taken by eminent 
domain with the intent of them moving there, and this would just make 
that clear.
  This amendment would say any property condemned or taken after 
December 31, 1999, by eminent domain by the Federal Government, State 
or local government, or any other person acting under a delegation of 
authority. And that is what has happened in Connecticut; the local 
government has delegated to a development group the authority to take 
this property by eminent domain. It is pending in the courts of 
Connecticut.
  If we do not adopt this amendment, the museum could end up on 
property that was taken from families who have lived there for 
generations by a local corporation, if it is upheld by the State courts 
to site the museum. There seems to be broad consensus on the objective. 
I offered to the gentleman whose project this is, and it is a 
meritorious project, and I congratulate him on that, to make this a 
friendly amendment since he agrees he does not want eminent domain 
used. I said I would be happy if we could do it as a friendly 
amendment. The gentleman does not want to do that. I hope the gentleman 
will explain why, and if he wants to contest that the bill somehow 
restricts eminent domain, I hope he cites from a specific section of 
the bill because I have read the only section that pertains to this. 
There is no mention of restriction on siting this museum on property 
taken by eminent domain, and it seems to me there is no good reason why 
we should not adopt this amendment. I would hope the committee would 
move forward and look at it as a friendly amendment and adopt it.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I thank my colleagues for working with me to 
establish a national Coast Guard Museum. This issue of eminent domain 
came up at a business meeting of the subcommittee on June 12, 2003, 
when I offered legislation to create a national Coast Guard Museum that 
was designed to extend the curriculum of the cadets at the academy and 
also for the leadership courses which take place in New London, which 
is the location of the academy.

                              {time}  1630

  Currently there is a one-room museum on academy grounds that is used 
for this purpose. It is inadequate for this purpose, and for years we 
have wanted to expand that facility into what we call the National 
Coast Guard Museum. The distinguished ranking member of the committee 
raised an objection at the time and stated that while he felt the 
language was well-intentioned and a good idea, a number of problems 
were brought to his attention by a homeowners association raising 
concerns. This was the issue of the displacement of people under 
eminent domain authority, an issue that I share his concern about.
  In the context of the subcommittee meeting, I was asked by the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New 
Jersey, if I would be willing to withdraw my amendment and work with 
the distinguished ranking member on language which addressed this 
issue. In the intervening weeks, we did just that. On Wednesday, June 
25, alternative language was introduced which is now in the bill, which 
I believed and I think others believed address the issue. When it was 
passed unanimously by the committee, I thanked the ranking member, I 
thanked the chairman of the committee and the subcommittee for their 
cooperation on this matter. It has only been in the last week that I 
have discovered that another Member had concerns about this language.
  It is true that the bill is silent on the issue of eminent domain. 
That was the intent. Because issues of eminent domain, especially 
issues that are in litigation, should not be affected one way or 
another by legislative action. But what the language of subsection (d) 
does which is so important and it does it in what I consider to be a 
very elegant way, and I thank the ranking member and his staff for 
coming up with this formulation. It says, before the date on which the 
Commandant establishes a museum under subsection (a), the Commandant 
shall provide to the committee, shall, he has no choice. He must do it. 
He must provide to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure a 
plan for operating and maintaining such a museum which gives us as 
members of the committee the opportunity to say yes or to say no. That 
is where the discussion of eminent domain from our standpoint should 
take place, from my point of view, not legislating language that would 
interfere with ongoing litigation involving the State, the municipality 
and other instruments. I believe firmly that this is the solution that 
we were looking for. This is the solution that very elegantly threads 
the needle on this difficult issue. I was grateful to the ranking 
member and to the other members of the committee for this assistance in 
coming up with this language.
  We all know that the Coast Guard has assumed new duties and a new 
role since September 11. We all know that the Coast Guard is the only 
uniformed service that currently does not have a

[[Page 27339]]

 national-level museum. The Army, and I was proud to serve in the Army 
for 37 years, has 46 museums. The Marine Corps has six. The Navy has 
11, and so on and so on and so forth.
  But let us take the discussion of eminent domain just one step 
further. Following the action of the full committee on June 25, the New 
London Day published an article the following day which says, Museum 
Proposal Makes Progress. Congressional Panel Approves, et cetera, et 
cetera.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The time of the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) has expired.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Connecticut?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reserving the right to object, Madam Chairman, if the 
gentleman will give me the courtesy of an additional 2 minutes to 
respond, I would be happy not to object.
  Madam Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Madam Chairman, it states, very briefly, the oversight 
provision, this is subsection (d), will enable Members of Congress to 
continue to raise questions as the project proceeds and should make it 
harder for backers of the museum to pursue the Fort Trumbull site, 
according to Scott Bullock, attorney for the Institute for Justice. 
Then it goes on to make several other statements in that line.
  I think it is apparent, based on the reading of the Record and based 
on the reading of that public news story, that in crafting the 
oversight language, we met the objectives of dealing with the issue of 
eminent domain without interfering with litigation that may be taking 
place at a municipal or a State level. In that way, we have fulfilled 
our obligations and any further amendments to this effect are not 
helpful.

                [From the New London Day, June 26, 2003]

Museum Proposal Makes Progress--Congressional Panel Approves NL as Host 
                          for Coast Guard Plan

                            (By Judy Benson)

       A Congressional subcommittee approved a measure Wednesday 
     that authorizes the establishment of a Coast Guard museum in 
     New London.
       In addition, the measure, an amendment to a larger Coast 
     Guard authorization bill, gives Congress continued oversight 
     of the museum project, an addition that addresses concerns 
     about using property taken by eminent domain.
       The original measure was introduced by U.S. Rep. Rob 
     Simmons, D-2nd District, with the oversight language added by 
     other members of the panel concerned that property in the 
     Fort Trumbull neighborhood in New London taken by eminent 
     domain would be used.
       The oversight provision will enable members of Congress to 
     continue to raise questions as the project proceeds and 
     should make it harder for backers of the Coast Guard museum 
     to pursue the Fort Trumbull site, according to Scott Bullock, 
     attorney for the Institute for Justice, The institute is 
     representing property owners in the Fort Trumbull 
     neighborhood in a lawsuit to block the city and the New 
     London Development Corp. from taking the land by eminent 
     domain as part of a redevelopment project.
       Simmons said the action Wednesday is an important step 
     toward the creation of the museum in New London, the home of 
     the Coast Guard Academy. Earlier this month, Simmons proposed 
     a similar amendment that he later withdrew when a ranking 
     committee member brought up the eminent domain issue.
       ``Today's action in the House Transportation and 
     Infrastructure Committee was a bipartisan stamp of approval 
     to move forward and designate a national museum for the U.S. 
     Coast Guard,'' Simmons said. ``Every other military service 
     has at least six museums to commemorate their histories and 
     service men and women. The Coast Guard deserves to have one.
       ``As the Coast Guard increases its responsibilities in a 
     post-September 11 world,'' he continued, ``now is the time to 
     honor the service and history of the many men and women in 
     the Coast Guard with a national museum.''
       The bill containing the amendment next goes to the full 
     transportation committee for a vote and then to the full 
     House. Funds to build the museum are to come from private 
     groups.
       Bullock said he considers Wednesday's action significant 
     because it enables the museum project to move forward, but 
     with the restriction of Congressional oversight even though 
     federal funds have not been allocated for the museum.
       ``This demonstrates the very real concern in Congress about 
     what is happening in New London and how eminent domain would 
     be used,'' Bullock said.
       He noted that the amendment said that the preferred site 
     would be ``at or near the Coast Guard Academy,'' leaving the 
     door open for a location in New London other than Fort 
     Trumbull.
       ``There are ways to establish the museum in New London and 
     make all parties happy,'' he said.
       Coast Guard leaders remain committed to locating the museum 
     near the academy, and are considering all options in New 
     London, according to Jolie Shifflet, spokeswomen for the 
     Coast Guard.

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMMONS. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Is this museum going to be in the gentleman's 
district?
  Mr. SIMMONS. The Coast Guard Academy is in my district.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. That is where the museum will be?
  Mr. SIMMONS. That is where we hope the museum will be.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. This will not be built on Federal land?
  Mr. SIMMONS. This will be built by an entity that was created to 
build the museum without the expenditure of Federal funds.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. There will be no Federal funds and not on 
Federal lands. It is not on Federal property as was just mentioned? I 
think the point here, and I have, as the gentleman from Oregon knows, 
some great interest in condemnation proceedings, which I do not approve 
of, but I do think it is wrong, though, for this body to get involved 
in a local government and in a State process in a condemnation deciding 
which side it should be on. It should be left up to the local 
governments to do this because there are no Federal lands involved and 
no Federal funds. I think gentleman's presentation is correct. 
Although, I do not like condemnation proceedings, I do think we have to 
look at the local government's position as well as the State, and we 
should butt out, frankly.
  Mr. SIMMONS. I thank the chairman for those comments.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
last word.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chairman, the point here is that this says that a 
private entity will build this museum and then gift it to the Federal 
Government for operation. This is ultimately going to be an official 
museum of the United States Coast Guard, a Federal museum. This 
amendment does not interfere in the litigation for a taking. If this 
local development corporation indeed has the right under Connecticut 
law and the United States Constitution to take the land and throw these 
people off their property, they will have that right as determined by 
the courts. All this amendment says is that this Coast Guard museum, 
which is going to be a Coast Guard facility in the future after it is 
built and gifted to the Federal Government and the Coast Guard, will 
not be built on land that was condemned for that purpose, throwing 
families out of their homes. It is very simple. That is the issue 
before this Congress.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Madam Chairman, the subject at hand here is a matter that the 
gentleman from Connecticut and I did indeed discuss in the course of 
the markup on the Coast Guard authorization bill. I raised two 
questions. One was with respect to the funding the gentleman has 
discussed and language that he has read accurately from the committee 
bill. The second was the eminent domain issue. I recall how very 
poignantly the gentleman, in fact, we met in the Democratic sitting 
room off the committee floor, off the committee dias, told me how very 
poignantly his family had been displaced by

[[Page 27340]]

an eminent domain proceeding and that he did not want to see anybody 
displaced by eminent domain. I read to him the language that the 
gentleman from Oregon has just a moment ago referred to from the 
Hartford newspaper. I was very distressed by this. People had written 
to me about it, especially that 87-year-old Italian immigrant woman. 
Half Italian myself, I deeply sympathized with it.
  But in further reviewing the matter since the issue was before the 
State supreme court, I said, I will desist from the eminent domain 
issue. Let us watch and see whether the court can resolve this matter. 
If not, we can revisit it again. So we bifurcated the issue and dealt 
with the Federal funding issue.
  Now, comes the gentleman from Oregon who has been approached by the 
locals who very much are upset about this matter, and I understand his 
concern. Representing a western State, the gentleman from Oregon as the 
chairman of the full committee, frequently is crosscut by eminent 
domain issues and has confronted this matter time and again in the 
Committee on Resources. That is why, out of very deep personal 
conviction, he brings this issue to the floor. I say that for the 
Record. I want the Record to be clear. If the gentleman has any concern 
or question, I will be glad to give him a moment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I guess maybe we could establish at least one point 
here.
  I would ask the gentleman from Connecticut if he would agree that the 
museum should not be placed on property that is condemned for that 
purpose.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) 
to respond.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments 
and his recollections. I refer to a letter from the Coast Guard in June 
of this year saying, the Coast Guard is not directly involved in the 
acquisition process. The issue of eminent domain is not for the Coast 
Guard to decide. We look forward to a resolution of these issues by the 
community.
  If I could further add to the Record, the amendment, as drafted, 
would prevent any property that has been taken by eminent domain from 
being used for this purpose. If the Coast Guard, for example, was to 
decide to take the existing 3,500-square-foot facility and add a second 
and a third floor to it and call it the national museum, they could not 
because that property was taken by eminent domain back in the thirties.

         Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard,
                                    Washington, DC, June 18, 2003.
     Hon. Robert Simmons,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Simmons: I am writing to you concerning 
     the establishment and siting of the National Coast Guard 
     Museum. The American public deserves a National Coast Guard 
     Museum to preserve the heroic and important heritage of the 
     Service.
       For over 90 years, the Coast Guard has enjoyed a close, 
     warm, and productive relationship with the people of New 
     London and Connecticut. New London is already the home of the 
     Coast Guard Academy, our Leadership Development Center, 
     America's tall ship EAGLE, Coast Guard Station New London, 
     and Coast Guard Cutter CHINOOK. New London is also a city 
     where our roots are established and a center of maritime and 
     nautical tradition. Therefore, New London is the focus of 
     current efforts to acquire a suitable property.
       We realize there is an energetic local dialogue and debate 
     over the merits of possible sites and methods of acquiring 
     property suitable for a National Coast Guard Museum. The 
     Coast Guard is not, however, directly involved in the 
     acquisition process. The issue of eminent domain is not for 
     the Coast Guard to decide. We look forward to a resolution of 
     these issues by the community.
       We have recognized, and have signed an agreement that 
     establishes, the Coast Guard National Museum Association 
     (CGNMA) as the sole organization working to acquire land, 
     raise funds for the construction of a museum, and donate the 
     museum and land to the Coast Guard. We have no formal 
     relationship with New London Development Corporation (NLDC) 
     beyond informing them on the progress of the museum project. 
     I refer you to the President of the National Coast Guard 
     Museum Association to discuss the specifics about any 
     agreements between them and the NLDC.
       Although there is an initial conceptual design, the final 
     design of the building will depend on the site chosen and the 
     finalization of plans for the museum style, exhibits, and 
     functions. It will be integrated into the overall plans for 
     development of the selected site through coordination with 
     appropriate local officials, agencies, and affected parties.
       The Coast Guard has been part of the New London community 
     for over 90 years and has great ties with, and great feelings 
     for the people of New London. My House Liaison Office at 
     (202) 225-4775 would be pleased to respond to any further 
     questions you or your staff may have.
           Sincerely,

                                                 T.J. Barrett,

                                   Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard,
                                                Acting Commandant.

  Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman's language limits to 1999. So it cannot 
go back as far as the gentleman is suggesting.
  I regret that this matter could not have been resolved at the 
committee level. It is an issue raised out of deep conviction by the 
gentleman from Oregon. I support his concern.
  Mr. BAIRD. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chairman, in the previous exchange, I did not get 
a definitive answer. He read from something from the Coast Guard that 
says they are neutral on this. If someone else condemns the land and 
the museum is built there, they will accept it. That is what that 
letter says. That is the bottom line here. We are not protecting these 
families who have lived on that land for nearly a century and do not 
want to give it up. An 87-year-old woman and her husband, a merchant 
mariner from World War II. I would just like a simple answer. I know 
the gentleman does not generally support eminent domain, he added 
something with his own family, but the question is simple. Would the 
gentleman agree, will he stand up and say ``yes'' in response to the 
question, will the gentleman say that this museum should not be built 
on property taken from these families in New London, Connecticut, by 
eminent domain, yes or no. It is a simple question.
  Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Madam Chairman, unfortunately, it is not as simple as 
that. Unfortunately, 90 acres of land that was disposed of by the Navy 
as part of the BRAC process is now the focus of this development 
activity in a distressed city in the State of Connecticut and nobody 
can tell me with any assurance that this language that has been offered 
will not make it impossible for the Coast Guard to accept any of that 
Navy property, Customs property or even preexisting Coast Guard 
property.
  If I could just make one other point. The language addresses the 
Coast Guard museum and places a burden on the Coast Guard, whether it 
be looking at property in Connecticut or New York or New Jersey, but 
nothing in the language prevents the New London Development Corporation 
from proceeding with its condemnation activities which are currently in 
the courts. Nothing in this amendment protects those families.
  Mr. BAIRD. I appreciate the gentleman's clarification of that.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. There we have it. As the gentleman said earlier in the 
debate, it does not interfere in the legal proceedings, and certainly 
we cannot do that. But what this amendment does, and this has nothing 
to do with the BRAC process or Federal excess property, a museum 
established under this section may not be located on any property that 
is condemned or taken after December 31, 1999. The land that was 
formerly a military base BRAC process does not meet that definition. By 
eminent domain. That is the key here. There is a group of people who 
are targeted. They are targeted. Families are targeted, living on this 
property. They do not want to give up their homes. An elderly couple. 
Their son and daughter-in-law and others who live on this property and 
have lived

[[Page 27341]]

there for years, they do not want to give it up. This is simple. The 
Coast Guard has many options on where to put this museum and many 
adjacent and in the city of New London. It does not have to be on 
property that was condemned for that purpose.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.

                              {time}  1645

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Manzullo

  Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Manzullo:
       Insert at the end of title VI the following new section:

     SEC. 6__. LIMITATION ON BRIDGE ALTERATION PROJECTS.

       The Coast Guard may conduct bridge alteration projects 
     using amounts authorized under section 101(1)(B)(iv) of this 
     Act only to the extent that the steel, iron, and manufactured 
     products used in such projects are produced in the United 
     States, unless the Commandant of the Coast Guard determines 
     such action to be inconsistent with the public interest or 
     the cost unreasonable.

  Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, I rise to introduce this amendment to 
close a loophole that is allowing Federal funding under this bill to 
purchase foreign-made steel for bridge construction.
  In 1940 Congress established the Alteration of Bridges program that 
enabled the Coast Guard to ensure open navigation of waterways. Under 
this program the Coast Guard can require bridge owners to alter bridges 
that pose an unreasonable obstruction to navigation. The Coast Guard 
contributes a portion of the bridge alteration costs based on 
modifications or replacement related to ensuring improved navigation. I 
cite two recent examples:
  Even though 80 to 90 percent of the construction funds to alter a 
railroad bridge over the Mississippi River in Burlington, Iowa, came 
from the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard argued that the Buy American Act 
did not apply because the bridge was owned by a non-Federal entity. 
This project used 3,400 tons of steel.
  The agency made the same argument for a $44 million railroad bridge 
replacement project in the Port of New Orleans. The Coast Guard's share 
of the project's cost came to 94 percent; yet they still determined the 
Buy American Act did not apply.
  The Buy American Act was intended to ensure that when the taxpayers' 
money was spent on Federal projects that the materials and goods used 
came from American production, to stimulate our production in the jobs-
producing aspect of the project. The Coast Guard's refusal to follow 
the intention of the act because of its legalistic determination 
circumvents the act's intent.
  Let me illustrate the economic impact of this. It takes an average of 
25 man-hours of labor to fabricate a ton of steel. The 3,400 tons 
required for the Burlington bridge equals about 85,000 hours. That is 
over 40 full-time jobs for 1 year. And these are exactly the kind of 
high-wage jobs, averaging $17 an hour plus benefits that pay enough for 
people to buy a home and support a decent standard of living.
  The steel bridge industry fabricates on average about 500,000 tons of 
steel a year. That is over 12 million man-hours of labor. Now we are 
talking about 6,000 jobs. With an average price of steel at about 
$2,000 a ton, this means a billion-dollar manufacturing industry. These 
are the jobs directly related to fabricating the beams and girders.
  When the Coast Guard circumvents the Buy American Act, it uses 
taxpayer dollars to pay the steelworkers of Japan and Korea. The 
problem here today is not with the Buy American Act, but with the 
multiple efforts being used to get around it. This amendment closes one 
of the loopholes and makes it clear that federally funded public works 
will be expected to adhere to the intent of the act as Congress 
envisioned.
  The Coast Guard is our first line of defense in homeland security, 
guarding our shores and waterways. We should not allow the Coast Guard 
to undermine our economic security, the very jobs of our citizens that 
pay the taxes that allow us to have a Coast Guard in the first place. A 
similar amendment was adopted by the other body to the appropriations 
for the Department of Homeland Security and passed into law.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment to make this permanent law.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
amendment. We have looked it over, and we think it is a good amendment; 
and we are prepared to accept it.
  Mr. BAIRD. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I appreciate the comments from my colleagues, and I thank the 
chairman of the committee for his willingness to accept this.
  I just want to briefly add my support for this. This is about jobs. 
It is about national security, and it is about efficient 
transportation. It is about jobs because we need to preserve the 
fundamental principles of the Buy American Act. Steel fabricators, 
steel producers in this country produce a high-quality product. They 
employ thousands of Americans with family-wage jobs, and the Buy 
American Act assures that they will continue to do so. It is about 
national security because we must sustain the domestic steel 
fabrication and manufacturing industry both for defense purposes and 
for transportation purposes. And, finally, it is about transportation 
efficiency. An efficient, quality, modern and economically sound steel 
fabrication industry is absolutely essential to the viability of our 
transportation system. I applaud the gentleman for his leadership, and 
I thank the Chair for his willingness to support this.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  I appreciate the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Manzullo). It fits in with the longstanding position of our 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on Buy America on steel 
in our Federal aid highway and transit and Corps of Engineers programs. 
It is only recently the committee has had jurisdiction over the Coast 
Guard, and there too we need this vigilance over the Truman-Hobbs Act.
  I authored in 1982 in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 
that year a provision that requires American steel to be used in all 
Federal-aid highway projects. The amendment accepted in committee and 
approved in the House required 100 percent American steel on all 
Federal-aid highway programs; and when we got to conference with the 
Senate, we had a little dispute.
  They wanted to be more supportive of international trade, and we 
worked out language that I had a fallback position on, and it has 
worked out well. It requires all steel in the Federal-aid highway 
program to be American steel. What we see is every bridge, every 
girder, every rebar, every guardrail, every fence post is American 
steel. When I chaired the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight 
in the mid-1980s, my good friend Bill Clinger, who was ranking 
Republican on the subcommittee at the time, and I conducted extensive 
inquiry into the application of the Buy American Act, and we found that 
the Federal Highway Administration was administering that

[[Page 27342]]

program rigorously. Two million tons of steel a year that go into the 
Federal-aid highway program is American steel.
  It was not quite so good in the Federal Transit Administration. The 
Corps of Engineers was not doing a very good job at all. When they put 
in the caissons for the footings for bridges that the Corps of 
Engineers built, they used foreign steel. They built the bridge with 
American steel. I said wait a minute, how can they do this? Well, this 
is a temporary structure. But I found that the corps leaves that steel 
covering for the caisson in place afterward to help against scouring at 
the time of flood. I said, so that is a permanent structure. So we 
changed the law to toughen it up so the corps could not circumvent the 
Buy America provision.
  Now we come to the Coast Guard and the Truman-Hobbs bridge alteration 
program. The language that the gentleman offers restates a provision 
that is already in the Homeland Security Appropriations Act that 
requires American steel to be used in these projects, but we ought to 
put it in here. We ought to reinforce an already-established strongly 
held principle. These are American dollars, taxpayer dollars. In the 
Federal Highway Program, that is our highway trust fund dollars that 
are to be used to buy American steel and put it in those facilities.
  What stimulated events in 1982 was we were building a bridge between 
Duluth and Superior. The State of Wisconsin had a responsibility for 
that bridge construction. They let a contract to Japanese steel, 10,000 
tons of Japanese steel to build a center-arch span in that bridge. I 
vowed that never again would we have this happen. That iron ore from 
the Minnesota Iron Range would have to go under a bridge built with 
Japanese steel? They have got to be kidding. Out of that came the Buy 
American provisions.
  By heavens, I am not going to let that slip away. We lost 890,000 
jobs in the steel industry in the last 20 years to foreign steel, 
subsidized overseas, dumped in America, driving American jobs out.
  The gentleman offers a very fine amendment. We ought to toughen it, 
but we ought to take an overview in our committee, I say to the 
chairman of the subcommittee. We ought to have an in-depth review of 
the Buy America provision as it applies not just to the Coast Guard, 
and I say this to the chairman of the full committee, but as it applies 
to all the issues under the jurisdiction of our committee. We provide 
funding which averages about $80 billion a year for infrastructure 
programs, and we ought to make sure that everything we are buying is 
American steel, and American goods in other arenas as well. Cement that 
goes into the concrete, asphalt, they all ought to be American product. 
So I support the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 13 Offered by Ms. Baldwin

  Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 13 offered by Ms. Baldwin:
       At the end of title VI (page 43, after line 2), add the 
     following:

     SEC.    . LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS TO ACQUIRE ENGINES FOR 
                   INTEGRATED DEEP WATER SYSTEM.

       None of the funds authorized in this Act may be used to 
     acquire any main propulsion diesel engine for the Coast 
     Guard's Integrated Deep Water System unless the engine is 
     manufactured in the United States.

  Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Chairman, I offer this bipartisan amendment on 
behalf of myself and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan). Our 
amendment is simple. It would prohibit funds authorized in this bill 
from being used to acquire the main propulsion diesel engines for the 
Coast Guard's new fleet of ships in the Integrated Deep Water System, 
unless the engines are manufactured in the United States of America.
  Earlier this year I offered a similar amendment to the Department of 
Homeland Security Appropriations bill. At that time my amendment was 
not in order; so it did not come up for a vote. But during 
consideration of my prior amendment to the homeland security bill, a 
lively debate ensued; and I believe that there was some confusion at 
that time, and I wanted to take a moment right now to address those 
misimpressions.
  A colleague opposed my amendment, arguing that the diesel engines for 
the new Coast Guard ships were being made in America and that my 
amendment was not necessary. The gentleman was incorrect. While it is 
true that there is a Michigan company that was selected to be the 
vendor for the propulsion system, I have a letter received from the 
Coast Guard 2 days after the conclusion of that debate that states 
clearly that the diesel engines are foreign made. The Coast Guard 
letter states that the components of the propulsion system ``include 
MTU Diesels of German design and manufacture.'' So while Detroit Diesel 
may be the vendor for the whole system, the diesel propulsion engines 
are designed and made in Germany by German workers, not Michigan or 
other American workers as the gentleman had claimed.
  As we all know, Congress has made a commitment to overhaul the Coast 
Guard's fleet, phasing out older and obsolete ships and building new 
ones. It is a large taxpayer investment, one that I am proud to 
support. But for goodness sake, let us build those ships and all of 
their components in America.
  Our amendment would require that the main propulsion diesel engines, 
a critical component of this new fleet of large ships, are made in the 
United States. There are several good U.S. firms with U.S. plants that 
are ready, willing, and able to provide the diesel engines for the 
Coast Guard at or below total operation cost of the German-made 
engines. And in the interest of full disclosure, one of those companies 
is in Wisconsin. But I also note that the Michigan vendor that I 
referred to earlier would also qualify for the engine contract under 
this amendment if it were to pass, if the engines were to be made in 
Michigan or in other U.S. locations and not in Germany.

                              {time}  1700

  Madam Chairman, we are bleeding well-paying, family-supporting 
manufacturing jobs in this country. Since 2000, we have lost over 2.7 
million manufacturing jobs. When manufacturing jobs go away, economic 
history shows us that it is hard to get them back.
  Let me remind Members that these are United States taxpayer dollars. 
They should be supporting U.S. workers, and not just U.S. CEO's who are 
contracting out with foreign sister corporations to take these good 
jobs overseas. Our amendment would help keep some of those jobs here at 
home, making vital products for vital parts of the defense of our 
Nation.
  Keep in mind, the Coast Guard is part of our homeland defense. Do we 
want to be reliant on overseas suppliers for essential parts and 
services for our defense infrastructure, or do we want to produce these 
important components here at home? I urge Members to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment.
  I want to keep my remarks brief, because we have been down this road 
before, but there is really no rational reason to support this 
amendment. The competition to supply the main propulsion diesel engines 
for the Coast Guard's Integrated Deepwater System is over. It was a 
fair and open competition that was won by Detroit Diesel of Michigan. 
It is history. Unfortunately, and we should name the other competitor 
that the author of the amendment brings up, it is Fairbanks Morse of 
Wisconsin, it is a good company, but they simply have not accepted the 
results of that competition.
  For the second time in a few months, I have come to the floor to 
oppose an amendment, this particular amendment or one designed very 
similarly. It does nothing more than reverse the outcome of the 
competition and give Fairbanks Morse an unfair competitive advantage.
  Now, these are both very good American companies that employ 
thousands

[[Page 27343]]

of Americans, thousands of Americans, both of them. However, in this 
case, the proposal offered by Detroit Diesel was selected because the 
company offered a low-cost, high-performance, low-risk solution that 
was technically superior. The Coast Guard did not make this decision 
lightly, and it is my understanding that they oppose the amendment as 
well. It is time to accept the results of that competition.
  This is not about protecting American manufacturers, this is about 
doing an end run around the procurement process. I encourage all my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment, to ensure that open and fair 
competition for government contracts are respected and maintained.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I join my friend from 
Michigan in opposition to this amendment, which would apply a radical 
domestic source restriction to the acquisition of main propulsion 
diesel engines for use in Coast Guard vessels. This could have a 
devastating effect on the Coast Guard's ability to buy the best 
propulsion engines at reasonable costs to support its critical anti-
terror missions.
  We talk about taxpayers. We are asking taxpayers to pay more money to 
subsidize a private company. Despite the high sounding ``Buy America'' 
language, this is basically an earmark for a company. This goes against 
everything we stand for.
  What about the American companies that sell abroad? This invites 
retaliation, so American companies selling abroad today would be 
retaliated against and could lose those contracts. One has to remember 
that 95 percent of the world's consumers live outside of the United 
States.
  Restrictive provisions such as these run counter to our efforts to 
create an open, flexible, responsive and impartial competitive 
acquisition system that will enable all government agencies, including 
the Coast Guard, to acquire from the world markets, the best products 
available at fair and reasonable prices for American taxpayers.
  At the end of the day, this is about American taxpayers and getting 
them the best deal. As the gentleman said, they went through a lengthy 
procurement process where this was all analyzed, and the taxpayers won 
out in this contract. It is trying to be reversed here on the House 
floor.
  I hope my colleagues with will join the gentleman from Michigan and 
myself in opposing this amendment.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman for making those comments.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment offered by my colleague from Wisconsin and would like to 
comment on a few of the comments my colleague from Michigan said. He 
basically said the procurement process is done. This is an end run 
around the system.
  It is very important that we note we have had Buy American provisions 
in many, many Defense Department contracts. On issues of national 
security and on issues of homeland security, this Congress has, time 
over time over time, stipulated that we need to keep our U.S. 
manufacturing base intact so that when it comes to these matters of 
national and homeland security, we have the infrastructure and economy 
in this country to produce these goods that we need.
  This is simply being consistent with our Buy American language that 
we have had in other bills. We have had provisions for these kinds of 
purchases of these kinds of engines in the Defense Department 
appropriations bill. So it is very consistent that this language be 
included in this particular authorization bill, because this exact 
language has been included in other bills, namely Defense 
appropriations.
  We are not asking for something that is new and novel and different. 
The one thing we are asking for is we think it is important that this 
Congress does make a statement, and that statement is that, especially 
in areas of homeland and national security, we work to make sure we 
still have a manufacturing base in this country that can produce the 
kinds of goods and services we need to keep our country secure, to keep 
our borders secure.
  These engines that are going into these ships to protect our 
homeland, it is very important that we keep this industry alive in this 
country, because who knows what could happen down the road when we have 
to rely on other countries to help us protect our own country? They may 
not be there in the future. That is why this is important.
  It is also important because we are losing manufacturing jobs in this 
economy. Many areas of this economy are growing very well. We had 7.2 
percent economic growth in the last quarter. That is the fastest in 19 
years. But, and the big ``but'' is, we are still losing manufacturing 
jobs. This provision would keep and maintain manufacturing jobs in 
America, not in Germany.
  We are not against manufacturing jobs in Germany, we are just more 
for manufacturing jobs in America, especially in matters of homeland 
and national security.
  I urge adoption of this amendment. It is consistent with many other 
policies this Congress has passed in the very recent past, and, because 
of that, I urge its passage.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the exchange that we have just had between the Michigan 
delegation, or its voice, and the Wisconsin delegation and the previous 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois, point up a problem 
that we have to face and to which I alluded in my previous remarks, and 
that is the Buy America provisions that affect activities under the 
jurisdiction of our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure need 
to be revisited and thought through and refined.
  We have two very differing views of the application of the Buy 
American Act to the procurement at hand that the Coast Guard is 
involved with. The Coast Guard is opposed to the amendment. They say 
the Deepwater Program will comply with the Buy American Act. The Coast 
Guard and the prime contractor on this procurement, Lockheed Martin, 
have not, to the best of my knowledge, yet selected the engine to be 
used, although it is widely known and supposed that it will be the 
Detroit Diesel engine, with major parts made in Germany, assembled in 
the United States.
  That is where the refinements come in; products, parts of which are 
made overseas, assembled in the United States. We have lost the whole 
subway, locomotive and passenger car business to overseas producers. We 
have lost virtually all light rail and heavy rail production to 
overseas. Only just recently, Colorado Railcar has come in to produce a 
very high quality commuter rail vehicle. We need to recapture all of 
that back to the United States.
  In the Transit Program, we have spent $36 billion over the last 6 
years on buses and heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail, intercity 
passenger rail, and a good deal of that is being produced overseas with 
subassemblies brought back to the United States, largely because our 
industry abandoned that field because we were not buying much of it, 
because we were building a lot of highways.
  Now, a lot more money is going into the transit system. We are 
handling 1 million new transit riders a day in America. There is a new 
market, so we are starting to recreate that market. Yet, big pieces of 
it being be produced overseas.
  Well, we need to recapture that business. We need to stimulate 
American manufacturers. The Manzullo amendment deals with steel in 
bridges under the Truman-Hobbs Act. The provision offered by the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin deals with equipment, vessels. There will be 
others when we get into the Transit program that will deal with 
railcars and locomotives and so on. We need a comprehensive approach to 
this issue. We need to further refine how the Buy American Act applies.
  While I sympathize fully and totally with the advocacy by the 
gentlewoman and the gentleman from Wisconsin, I think we are in an 
inadequate position right now, and I do not think that this

[[Page 27344]]

language adequately addresses the problem at hand.
  So, I urge the chairman of the subcommittee, and I will yield to the 
gentleman, to schedule hearings on this subject. Let us take a closer 
in-depth look as we prepare for the next authorization for the Coast 
Guard in the next session of this Congress.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising some 
very good points. We will certainly take a close look at this. It is an 
issue that I think most Members in this body can agree that we want to 
put a focus of attention on.
  I strongly agree with the gentleman that, while I understand the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin, that this is not 
the right amendment, that this is the wrong time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman's response. I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin, I 
will insist, and I know we will have the cooperation at the full 
committee level and subcommittee level, that we explore these matters 
in the depth and detail to which they are entitled and which you and 
your colleague from Wisconsin are entitled.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as Chair of the Subcommittee for Coast Guard and 
Maritime Transportation, I rise in very strong opposition to this 
amendment, and I join with the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), 
the chairman of the full committee, in saying that, first and foremost, 
this is a matter of national security.
  This Deepwater Program that we are finally under way with and finally 
gaining some momentum with is replacing the aged assets of the Coast 
Guard that are desperately needed. Prior to September 11, it was an 
issue that just related to Coast Guard traditional missions. Since 
September 11, with the role that the Coast Guard has taken for homeland 
and port security, it is essential that we replace these assets as 
quickly as possible.
  If in fact this amendment were to pass, the Coast Guard's National 
Security Cutter would be delayed by 18 months. That is totally 
unacceptable. The proposed amendment would also force the layoff of a 
number of U.S. workers; not workers in Germany, not workers somewhere 
else, workers right here in the United States of America. That is 
unacceptable.
  This proposal actually is an attempt to rewrite and to go beyond the 
Buy America provisions that currently apply to the Coast Guard's 
Deepwater Program and would cancel, I repeat, cancel the current task 
force order that was awarded to another American company.
  In addition to this, for those of my colleagues who are fiscally 
minded, this amendment, if enacted, would cost the American taxpayers 
in excess of $160 million. Unacceptable. Unacceptable on all fronts.
  This was a bidding process that we entered into that we went through. 
I understand that there is a regional dispute about how one company was 
affected. But it was done fairly, it was done properly.

                              {time}  1715

  For the sake of the Coast Guard, and I will say that the Coast Guard 
has not taken a formal position because they have not had the 
opportunity to see this amendment in writing and to respond, but I feel 
very confident in saying that the Coast Guard would strongly oppose 
this if they had the opportunity to respond in writing for all of the 
reasons outlined above.
  So I would urge my colleagues as strongly as I can to understand the 
implications of the Deep Water program moving forward, not being 
delayed, to understand the implications of national security, to 
understand the implications of taxpayer dollars being spent wisely, and 
vote against this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Bell

  Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bell:
       At the end of title VI (page 43, after line 2) add the 
     following:

     SEC.    . AREA MARITIME TRANSPORTATION SECURITY PLAN FOR PORT 
                   OF HOUSTON AND HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL.

       Section 70103(b) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Any Area Maritime Transportation Security Plan for 
     the Port of Houston or the Houston Ship Channel shall include 
     the information required by this subsection for each 
     petrochemical facility located within 5 miles of navigable 
     waters with respect to which the plan applies.''.

  Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment to the 
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act. This amendment is vital to 
the continued security of my hometown, Houston, Texas.
  The amendment calls on the Coast Guard to include petrochemical 
plants within 5 miles of the Port of Houston and the Houston Ship 
Channel in their area maritime security plans.
  The Maritime Transportation and Security Act requires the Coast Guard 
to develop both an area maritime security plan and a vessel and 
facilities plan.
  There has been some reluctance by the Coast Guard to include things 
like power plants in their plans because they do not consider power 
plants to be transportation related. However, Mr. Chairman, Houston, 
Texas, is the heart of America's energy industry and our coastline in 
Texas, and particularly in the Houston area, is dotted with refineries 
and petrochemical plants that are no doubt attractive targets to would-
be terrorists. In fact, in my district alone, we have over 100 
refineries responsible for close to 40 percent of the entire country's 
petroleum and petrochemical products, which are adjacent to the 
navigable waterways of the Port of Houston and the Houston Ship 
Channel. Some of these facilities are located right on the waterway and 
some are a bit inland. But because of the chemicals they deal with, a 
terrorist incident at an inland facility could produce a chain reaction 
affecting plants located much further away from the port itself. A 
terrorist incident at one of these plants could also cost thousands of 
lives and could have a devastating impact on the Houston metropolitan 
area, the fourth largest city in America.
  We have a responsibility to look at this situation holistically, Mr. 
Chairman. My amendment allows the Coast Guard to address the global 
security concerns that impact this vital transportation corridor and 
one of the biggest population centers in America. This amendment 
provides for a creative security solution that will actually make 
Houston, Texas, America's energy capital, much more secure.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BELL. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the concern of the 
gentleman. He presents a unique circumstance and that is that while the 
Coast Guard has authority for anything on the water or immediately 
adjacent to the water, the facilities the gentleman refers to are 
inland, several miles inland. We need a little time to think this 
through and to see whether the Coast Guard is the truly appropriate 
entity to have this responsibility and, if so, how we can provide it.
  I will assure the gentleman that, as the bill moves forward and as we 
get into conference with the other body, there is always an opportunity 
to make some adjustments, and I think we should respond, hopefully in 
that context, but if not, certainly by the time the committee 
researches the next Coast Guard reauthorization, which will be sometime 
next spring. We should revisit this matter. I share the gentleman's 
concern. Our Port Security Act does not deal with a matter of this 
kind, and we ought to think of a way in which we can provide the 
protection the gentleman legitimately has concerns about.

[[Page 27345]]

  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, with that assurance, and 
I very much appreciate the ranking member's commitment to this very 
important issue that affects the Houston area, and with the assurance 
that it can either be addressed in conference or at some point in the 
near future, at this point.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199, 
noes 221, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 604]

                               AYES--199

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Barrett (SC)
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pombo
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sandlin
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Toomey
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--221

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Boehlert
     Conyers
     Cubin
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Gephardt
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kucinich
     LaTourette
     Reyes
     Sanders
     Stearns
     Taylor (NC)
     Turner (TX)


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1744

  Messrs. DeMINT, TIERNEY, SMITH of Texas, Mrs. EMERSON, and Mrs. 
MUSGRAVE changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. NADLER, JONES of North Carolina, ROHRABACHER, RAMSTAD, 
McINNIS, and Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 604 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there other amendments?
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Thornberry) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Chairman pro tempore 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
2443) to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 
2004, to amend various laws administered by the Coast Guard, and for 
other purposes, pursuant to H. Res. 416, he reported the bill back to 
the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1745

  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

[[Page 27346]]



                          ____________________