[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20420-20443]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2005

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak), an admirer of the Coast Guard.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
LoBiondo), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the ranking member, 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) 
for their work on this bill. There could not be a more opportune time 
to bring this important legislation to the House floor than today with 
the aspects of Hurricane Katrina.
  The heroic and steadfast efforts of the Coast Guard in the wake of 
Katrina, the worst natural disaster this Nation has ever faced, should 
be commended by all. This recent tragedy demonstrates how important it 
is to authorize and fund vital programs that are contained in the Coast 
Guard bill we are discussing today. This bill will help the Coast Guard 
to continue to effectively carry out their mission.
  I represent a district that is almost completely surrounded by water, 
so I understand the importance of a Coast Guard that has the resources 
to assist our coastal communities.
  There is one provision included in the bill that is particularly 
important to me and my northern Michigan district. It directs the 
Commandant of the Coast Guard to convey the Cutter Mackinaw to the City 
and County of Cheboygan, Michigan, for purposes of a museum.
  The U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Mackinaw is scheduled to be 
decommissioned in 2006. The Cutter Mackinaw, whose home port has been 
Cheboygan, Michigan, has served the State of Michigan and the entire 
Great Lakes region for over 60 years.
  The conveyance of the Cutter Mackinaw to Cheboygan is both a tribute 
to the ship that protected Michigan's water and shores and cleared the 
ice paths for the Nation's mariners. This ship will now serve as an 
educational resource to help people better understand the history of 
the vessel, the Coast Guard and the maritime history of the Great 
Lakes. In this role, it is imperative that Michigan keep this historic 
treasure.
  I see no better way to honor the life and name of the cutter than to 
retire it as a museum to its home port in the Mackinaw Straits area. 
This Coast Guard treasure will be a valuable cultural and educational 
benefit for generations to come.
  Once again, thanks to the men and women of the United States Coast 
Guard for their work in saving lives in the aftermath of Hurricane 
Katrina.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman LoBiondo).
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from New Jersey is aware, Congress in 
2002 during the last reauthorization of Coast Guard activities enacted 
into law authorization for the Coast Guard to transfer a parcel of land 
at Point Pinos, California, to the City of Pacific Grove. Over the last 
3 years, the city has worked with the Coast Guard to finalize the 
arrangements, but the land has yet to be transferred. The delay has 
frustrated city officials, prevented the reuse of the land, and 
burdened the Coast Guard with maintenance and security of a facility 
they no longer need.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the chairman if he is aware of the problem 
and whether anything can be done to expedite the closure to this issue 
and the transfer of the property.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for rising on this 
matter. I am perplexed as to why this transfer has not yet occurred and 
concerned that it has not yet occurred.
  I have been told that the Department of Homeland Security needs to 
delegate the land transfer authority to the Coast Guard in order to 
complete and carry out this provision. I will work with the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Farr) to see that the transfer of this land to the 
City of Pacific Grove occurs in a timely manner.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the offer of assistance from the 
chairman and look forward to working with him to get this done.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, as the House considers the Coast Guard and 
Maritime Transportation Act, we have the opportunity to commend the men 
and women of the Coast Guard for their extraordinary achievements in 
response to Hurricane Katrina.
  On Sunday, August 28, as soon as the hurricane passed over the Gulf 
of Mexico, the Coast Guard launched into action. Battling winds that 
were still blowing at gale force, Coast Guard aircraft immediately 
began rescuing desperate survivors clinging to rooftops in flooded Gulf 
Coast coastal communities.
  After the Hurricane hit the Gulf Coast and as the enormity of the 
disaster became apparent, every Coast Guard air station in the country 
began sending help--aircraft or crews or both--to the devastated areas 
to conduct search and rescue missions. The numbers speak for 
themselves: across the region, the Coast Guard saved or evacuated 
33,500 people; one helicopter crew rescued 150 during a single shift on 
duty; another crew rescued 110.
  In New Orleans alone, working day and night for seven days, Coast 
Guard helicopters saved close to 6,500 lives, 4,700 of them by hoisting 
people from their perilous perches up into helicopters. Coast Guard 
crews dodged debris, hacked through roofs and windows, and waded in 
filthy water to reach survivors.
  Although Coast Guard facilities in the disaster area had been damaged 
by the storm and floods, and many Coast Guard men and women had lost 
their own homes, they pushed past all obstacles to carry out their 
mission.
  It was not just the members of the air and rescue teams that made 
this extraordinary effort possible: mechanics worked tirelessly to 
service aircraft and send them back into the field as quickly as 
possible. Supply and logistics personnel worked around the clock to 
restore hurricane-damaged facilities to use. Auxiliary volunteers 
rallied to the call of duty. As the storm receded, assessments of oil 
spills and critical infrastructure began.
  The Coast Guard's accomplishments shine all the brighter in contrast 
to FEMA's lethally slow response. There are many good men and women 
working for FEMA too, but they were hampered by weak, inexperienced, 
and ineffective leadership, and by the exodus over the past several 
years of many seasoned disaster relief experts who could no longer 
tolerate the disintegration of the agency.
  With this legislation, we are building upon the strengths and 
successes of the Coast Guard. Thank you to Vice Admiral Thad W. Allen 
for taking over relief operations in the disaster area. Thank you to 
the men and women of the Coast Guard who responded to this disaster 
from all around the country, from Florida to Seattle, from Boston to my 
own city of San Francisco. With all our hearts, we thank you.

[[Page 20421]]


  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank the leadership of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their hard work 
shepherding through the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 
2005, and to express my strong support of the bill. It authorizes $8.7 
billion for the Coast Guard for fiscal 2006, which will be used to 
perform the essential duties of the U.S. Coast Guard in the areas of 
homeland security, maritime safety, law enforcement, and environmental 
protection.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight a provision that I offered and was 
accepted by the Committee that directs the Coast Guard to conduct a 
study of the pollution in Newtown Creek caused by underground oil 
spills in Brooklyn, N.Y.
  Newtown Creek is a 3.5 mile long waterway that flows from the East 
River and separates the boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens. The State of 
New York has ruled that the Creek does not meet water quality standards 
under the Clean Water Act. It is the single most polluted waterway in 
New York City, and its banks are home to the largest oil spill in the 
United States. The spill is 150 percent the size of the Exxon-Valdez 
spill.
  In 1978, a Coast Guard patrol detected petroleum on the surface of 
Newtown Creek and identified a spill that spreads from the banks of the 
Creek through the Greenpoint neighborhood in Brooklyn. Evaluations at 
that time identified a spill totaling 17 million gallons attributed to 
refineries operated along the banks of the Creek by the predecessors to 
ExxonMobil, BP/Amoco and Chevron-Texaco. To date, 8.7 millions gallons 
have been cleaned but estimates indicate it will take at least 25 more 
years to finish the remediation, primarily conducted by ExxonMobil 
under a 1990 consent agreement with the New York State Department of 
Environmental Conservation.
  Even though it has been over 25 years since the oil spill was 
detected, the public health and safety risks associated with the oil 
spill are still unknown.
  The legislative intent of the amendment that directs the Coast Guard 
to study Newtown Creek (Creek) is for the Coast Guard to revisit the 
findings of its July 1979 report entitled ``Investigation of 
Underground Accumulation of Hydrocarbons along Newtown Creek,'' and 
address the following issues:
  The actual current size of the Greenpoint Oil Spill (Spill) and the 
extent to which oil from each refinery site contributes to the Spill.
  The extent and severity of surface water pollution and sediment 
contamination from the Spill, and methods to prevent further seepage 
into the Creek.
  The Spill's impact on existing conditions in the Creek including but 
not limited to low levels of dissolved oxygen and high levels of 
bacteria.
  The interaction between pollution from the Spill and pollution from 
other sources in the Creek including but not limited to Combined Sewer 
Overflow Pipes and the Newtown Creek Sewage Treatment Plant.
  The extent to which oil and contaminated sediments in the Creek 
disperse into New York Harbor.
  The extent to which the Spill has affected aquatic species in the 
Creek and Harbor, and methods to prevent further harm.
  The extent to which the Spill has affected groundwater in the 
surrounding area, and methods to prevent further harm.
  The extent and severity of contaminated soil in the area affected by 
the Spill, and methods to prevent further harm.
  Any public health issues raised by the Spill and the current 
remediation efforts, both independently and in interaction with other 
pollutants in the Creek.
  Any safety issues raised by the Spill and the current remediation 
efforts, both independently and in interaction with other pollutants in 
the Creek.
  The extent to which the current remediation efforts are sufficient, 
and any new technologies or approaches that could accelerate product 
recovery and/or improve the scope of the remediation.
  I would like to express my thanks to Chairman Young, Mr. Oberstar, 
Chairman LoBiondo, and Mr. Filner for their willingness to work with me 
on this very important yet often overlooked issue. The country will 
benefit from renewed Federal attention on this oil spill, the largest 
in the country.
  Additionally, I would like to thank both the Democratic and 
Republican staff of the Transportation Committee and the Subcommittee 
on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation. In particular, Ward 
McCarragher and John Cullather of Mr. Oberstar's staff and Fraser 
Verrusio and John Rayfield of Mr. Young's staff were very helpful.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, let me start by stating my sheer admiration 
for the men and women of the United States Coast Guard. Their 
performance during and after Katrina was phenomenal and they deserve 
our gratitude and praise.
  I rise to thank the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Transportation 
Committee and its Coast Guard subcommittee. A year ago, they worked 
with me to add language to the Coast Guard authorization bill requiring 
the Coast Guard and Department of Homeland Security to do a security 
assessment of the Indian Point nuclear power plant. As that bill moved 
through the process, this study was expanded to all nuclear power 
plants in the United States. I am pleased to report that DHS plans on 
releasing this report very soon--perhaps even this week. While I am 
well aware that security for nuclear plants is a sensitive matter and 
fully understand that this might require that parts of this report be 
classified, it is my hope that the report would contain unclassified 
sections to permit those around the nuclear plants to gain a better 
understanding of how our government is protecting them.
  We know for a fact that Al Qaeda has the plans of U.S. nuclear power 
plants. We know that these facilities are a target. We, the Congress 
and the rest of the federal government, have a responsibility to ensure 
the safety and security of these plants and our citizens. I am hopeful 
that the analysis in this report will help us as we make policy 
decisions about how best to safeguard these facilities.
  There is no doubt about the awesome power of nuclear energy. It 
provides 20 percent of the Nation's electricity. However, if a 
terrorist group were successful in causing major damage to a plant or 
its cooling ponds, then the impact would be devastating on a scale we 
dare not imagine.
  We know that on 9/11 one of the planes flew over Indian Point nuclear 
power plant in New York and that the terrorists had plans nuclear 
plants in their possession. While I will continue to call for Indian 
Point to be closed, until that day, I will work to ensure it is as safe 
and secure as is humanly possible. This report will be an important 
step toward protecting Indian Point and all nuclear power plants 
sitting on major waterways.
  Again, I thank Chairman Young, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member 
Oberstar and Ranking Member Filner for their assistance and support.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairmen 
Young and LoBiondo and Ranking Members Oberstar and Filner for their 
hard work in bringing this bill to the floor.
  The Coast Guard has been protecting our shores for more than 200 
years, and has done an outstanding job. The Coast Guard was the first 
Agency to react to the terrorist attacks on September 11th, and within 
minutes was guarding our ports and bridges, and directing maritime 
traffic out of New York. Right now they're in the Gulf region 
evacuating victims and cleaning up neighborhoods. And we now have a 
Coastie heading the recovery effort.
  Like many Members, I had major concerns when they moved the Coast 
Guard into the Department of Homeland Security because I feared that it 
would prevent them from doing their core missions of Search & Rescue, 
Drug Interdiction, and Enforcing Maritime and Fisheries Laws. We now 
know that they can also get caught up in the red tape of the Department 
of Homeland Security, and we need to keep the Department's feet to the 
fire, so they don't stand in the way of the Coast Guard's traditional 
mission.
  Fortunately the Transportation Committee realizes how important the 
Coast Guard is, and we are providing them $861 million more than the 
Administration. This is just one more example of where the money being 
sent to Iraq could be used right here by our own Coast Guard.
  I encourage my colleagues to support full funding for the Coast 
Guard. It's simply the right thing to do for America.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 889, the 
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2005. This legislation 
could not come up for our consideration at a better time. We have all 
seen the phenomenal rescues made by the United States Coast Guard 
during their efforts to save the lives of thousands of victims of 
Hurricane Katrina. I am sure that the more than 23,000 people who have 
been rescued by the Coast Guard and all Americans join me in thanking 
and commending the approximately 3,300 Coast Guard men and women who 
have been working around the clock to locate, rescue, and assist their 
victims of this natural disaster.
  Over the past few weeks we have seen the Coast Guard at their very 
best, but the Coast Guard's daily operations should not go unnoticed. 
We rely on the Coast Guard to patrol and protect our nation's waters 
everyday. They help to secure our nation's ports, harbors, and seaways 
and ensure the safety of our waterways. The Coast Guard, however, does 
not just have a domestic role. Many

[[Page 20422]]

members of the Coast Guard have been deployed overseas to fight in the 
War in Iraq.
  From the Jersey Shore, to the waters in Alaska, to the Gulf Coast, to 
Iraq, the men and women of the Coast Guard serve our nation with 
bravery and honor. We must provide them with the resources they need to 
ensure that they can continue their multifaceted mission. I once again 
thank every member of the Coast Guard for their service and sacrifice 
for our nation. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 
889.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to offer my strong 
support today for H.R. 889, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation 
Act of 2005.
  Over the last several weeks the Coast Guard has been in the national 
spotlight for the outstanding work it has done to aid in the recovery 
and relief efforts for Hurricane Katrina victims along the Gulf coast.
  While the response of many agencies has been scrutinized, the Coast 
Guard has not been one of them.
  The Coast Guard has been responsible for saving 33,000 lives--six 
times the number of lives the Coast Guard saved in 2004--since Katrina 
hit, coordinating pollution response with the Environmental Protection 
Agency, the state of Louisiana and local industries, and managing the 
megashelters in my hometown of Houston, Texas, where tens of thousands 
of the evacuees found relief following the storm.
  Coast Guard Lieutenant Joe Leonard and the units in Houston have done 
an incredible job in managing these shelters that received thousands of 
people a day in the days following Katrina.
  But relief efforts are just a part of what the Coast Guard does.
  The Coast Guard, which is a part of the Department of Homeland 
Security, is the lead federal agency for maritime homeland security.
  The Homeland Security Act of 2002 specifies five homeland security 
missions for the Coast Guard: ports, waterways, and coastal security; 
drug interdiction; migrant interdiction; defense readiness; and other 
law enforcement duties.
  With regard to port security, the Coast Guard is responsible for 
evaluating, boarding, and inspecting commercial ships approaching U.S. 
waters, countering terrorist threats in U.S. ports, and helping protect 
U.S. Navy ships in U.S. ports.
  The Port of Houston, which handles more foreign tonnage than any 
other port in the United States, is in the district I represent, and 
the Coast Guard provides the security necessary to protect the Port, as 
well as the people of Houston.
  Mr. Chairman, I would again like to thank the Coast Guard for its 
excellent work in the Katrina relief efforts, and urge my colleagues to 
support this bill.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule by title, and each title 
shall be considered read.
  No amendment to that amendment shall be in order except those printed 
in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose 
and pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Amendments printed 
in the Record may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be 
printed or his designee and shall be considered read.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

                                H.R. 889

       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 cited as the ``Coast Guard and Maritime 
     Transportation Act of 2005''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 1?


                Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. LoBiondo

  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young), I offer amendment No. 11, and I ask unanimous 
consent that I be permitted to offer the amendment at this point in the 
reading.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. LoBiondo:
       At the end of title I add the following:

     SEC. 103. AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDING RELATED TO HURRICANE 
                   KATRINA.

       There is authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2005 
     for the operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard, in 
     addition to the amounts authorized for that fiscal year by 
     section 101(1) of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation 
     Act of 2004 (118 Stat. 1030), $60,000,000 for emergency 
     hurricane expenses, emergency repairs, and deployment of 
     personnel, to support costs of evacuation, and for other 
     costs resulting from immediate relief efforts related to 
     Hurricane Katrina.
       At the end of title II add the following:

     SEC. 210. ICEBREAKER OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN.

       The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is 
     operating shall--
       (1) by not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, submit to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate a plan for operation and 
     maintenance of Coast Guard icebreakers in the waters of 
     Antarctica after fiscal year 2006 that does not rely on the 
     transfer of funds to the Coast Guard by any other Federal 
     agency; and
       (2) subject to the availability of appropriations, 
     implement the plan in fiscal years after fiscal year 2006.

     SEC. 211. OPERATION AS A SERVICE IN THE NAVY.

        Section 3 of title 14, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``Upon the declaration of war or when'' and 
     inserting ``When''.

     SEC. 212. COMMENDATION, RECOGNITION, AND THANKS FOR COAST 
                   GUARD PERSONNEL.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina struck the the 
     Gulf of Mexico coastal region of Louisiana, Mississippi, and 
     Alabama, causing the worst natural disaster in United States 
     history.
       (2) The response to such hurricane by members and employees 
     of the Coast Guard has been immediate, invaluable, and 
     courageous.
       (3) Members and employees of the Coast Guard--
       (A) have shown great leadership in helping to coordinate 
     relief efforts with respect to Hurricane Katrina;
       (B) have used their expertise and specialized skills to 
     provide immediate assistance to victims and survivors of the 
     hurricane; and
       (C) have set up remote assistance operations in the 
     affected areas in order to best provide service to Gulf of 
     Mexico coastal region.
       (4) Members of the Coast Guard have volunteered their 
     unique resources to assess the situation and deliver aid when 
     and where other relief efforts could not.
       (5) Members of the Coast Guard have demonstrated their 
     resolve and character by providing aid to Hurricane Katrina 
     victims and survivors.
       (6) Members and employees of the Coast Guard have worked 
     together to bring clean water, food, and resources to victims 
     and survivors in need.
       (b) Commendation, Recognition, and Thanks.--The Congress--
       (1) commends the outstanding efforts in response to 
     Hurricane Katrina by members and employees of the Coast 
     Guard;
       (2) recognizes that the actions of these individuals went 
     above and beyond the call of duty; and
       (3) thanks them for their continued dedication and service.

     SEC. 213. HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE FOR COAST GUARD PERSONNEL 
                   AFFECTED BY HURRICANE KATRINA.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard 
     is operating may reimburse a person who is eligible under 
     subsection (b) for reimbursement under this section, for 
     losses of qualified property owned by such person that result 
     from damage caused by Hurricane Katrina.
       (b) Eligible Persons.--A person is eligible for 
     reimbursement under this section if the person is a civilian 
     employee of the Federal Government or member of the uniformed 
     services who--
       (1) was assigned to, or employed at or in connection with, 
     a Coast Guard facility located in the State of Louisiana, 
     Mississippi, or Alabama on or before August 28, 2005;
       (2) incident to such assignment or employment, owned and 
     occupied property that is qualified property under subsection 
     (e); and
       (3) as a result of the effects of Hurricane Katrina, 
     incurred damage to such qualified property such that--
       (A) the qualified property is unsalable (as determined by 
     the Secretary); and
       (B) the proceeds, if any, of insurance for such damage are 
     less than an amount equal to the greater of--
       (i) the fair market value of the qualified property on 
     August 28, 2005 (as determined by the Secretary); or
       (ii) the outstanding mortgage, if any, on the qualified 
     property on that date.
       (c) Reimbursement Amount.--The amount of the reimbursement 
     that an eligible person may be paid under this section with 
     respect to a qualified property shall be determined as 
     follows:

[[Page 20423]]

       (1) In the case of qualified property that is a dwelling or 
     condominium unit, the amount shall be--
       (A) the amount equal to the greater of--
       (i) 85 percent of the fair market value of the dwelling or 
     condominium unit on August 28, 2005 (as determined by the 
     Secretary), or
       (ii) the outstanding mortgage, if any, on the dwelling or 
     condominium unit on that date; minus
       (B) the proceeds, if any, of insurance referred to in 
     subsection (b)(3)(B).
       (2) In the case of qualified property that is a 
     manufactured home, the amount shall be--
       (A) if the owner also owns the real property underlying 
     such home, the amount determined under paragraph (1); or
       (B) if the owner leases such underlying property--
       (i) the amount determined under paragraph (1); plus
       (ii) the amount of rent payable under the lease of such 
     property for the period beginning on August 28, 2005, and 
     ending on the date of the reimbursement under this section.
       (d) Transfer and Disposal of Property.--
       (1) In general.--An owner receiving reimbursement under 
     this section shall transfer to the Secretary all right, 
     title, and interest of the owner in the qualified property 
     for which the owner receives such reimbursement. The 
     Secretary shall hold, manage, and dispose of such qualified 
     property in the same manner that the Secretary of Defense 
     holds, manages, and disposes of real property under section 
     1013 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development 
     Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 3374).
       (2) Treatment of proceeds.--Any amounts received by the 
     United States as proceeds of management or disposal of 
     property by the Secretary under this subsection shall be 
     deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as offsetting 
     receipts of the department in which the Coast Guard is 
     operating and ascribed to Coast Guard activities.
       (e) Qualified Property.--Property is qualified property for 
     the purposes of this section if as of August 28, 2005, the 
     property was a one- or two-family dwelling, manufactured 
     home, or condominium unit in the State of Louisiana, 
     Mississippi, or Alabama that is owned and occupied, as a 
     principal residence, by a person who is eligible under 
     subsection (b).
       (f) Subject to Appropriations.--The authority to pay 
     reimbursement under this section is subject to the 
     availability of appropriations.

     SEC. 214. REPORT ON PERSONNEL, ASSETS, AND EXPENSES.

        Not later than September 15, 2005, and at least once every 
     month thereafter through January 2006, the Commandant of the 
     Coast Guard shall report to the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate regarding the personnel and assets deployed to assist 
     in the response to Hurricane Katrina and the costs incurred 
     as a result of such response that are in addition to funds 
     already appropriated for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 
     2005.

     SEC. 215. LIMITATION ON MOVING ASSETS TO ST. ELIZABETHS 
                   HOSPITAL.

        The Commandant of the Coast Guard may not move any Coast 
     Guard personnel, property, or other assets to the West Campus 
     of St. Elizabeths Hospital until the Administrator of General 
     Services submits to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate 
     plans--
       (1) to provide road access to the site from Interstate 
     Route 295; and
       (2) for the design of facilities for at least one Federal 
     agency other than the Coast Guard that would house no less 
     than 2,000 employees at such location.
       Amend section 405 to read as follows:

     SEC. 405. REPORT.

       (a) In General.--The Commandant of the Coast Guard shall 
     review the adequacy of assets and facilities described in 
     subsection (b) to carry out the Coast Guard's missions, 
     including search and rescue, illegal drug and migrant 
     interdiction, aids to navigation, ports, waterways and 
     coastal security, marine environmental protection, and 
     fisheries law enforcement. Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Commandant shall 
     submit a report to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate that includes the findings of that review and any 
     recommendations to enhance mission capabilities in those 
     areas.
       (b) Areas of Review.--The report under subsection (a) shall 
     provide information and recommendations on the following 
     assets:
       (1) Coast Guard aircraft, including helicopters, stationed 
     at Air Station Detroit in the State of Michigan.
       (2) Coast Guard vessels and aircraft stationed in the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
       (3) Coast Guard vessels and aircraft stationed in the State 
     of Louisiana along the Lower Mississippi River between the 
     Port of New Orleans and the Red River.
       (4) Coast Guard vessels and aircraft stationed in Coast 
     Guard Sector Delaware Bay.
       (5) Physical infrastructure at Boat Station Cape May in the 
     State of New Jersey.
       In section 412 insert ``of 1990'' after ``Oil Pollution 
     Act''.
       At the end of title IV add the following:

     SEC. 413. DETERMINATION OF THE SECRETARY.

       Section 70105(c) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3) by inserting before the period 
     ``before an administrative law judge''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) In making a determination under paragraph (1)(D), the 
     Secretary shall not consider a felony conviction that 
     occurred more than 7 years prior to the date of the 
     Secretary's determination.''.

     SEC. 414. REPORT ON TECHNOLOGIES.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall submit a 
     report to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate that 
     includes an assessment of--
       (1) the availability and effectiveness of technologies that 
     evaluate and identify inbound vessels and their cargo for 
     potential threats before they reach United States ports, 
     including technologies already tested or in testing at joint 
     operating centers; and
       (2) the costs associated with implementing such technology 
     at all United States ports.

     SEC. 415. MOVEMENT OF ANCHORS.

       Section 12105 of title 46, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Only a vessel for which a certificate of 
     documentation with a registry endorsement is issued may be 
     employed in the setting or moving of the anchors or other 
     mooring equipment of a mobile offshore drilling unit that is 
     located above or on the outer Continental Shelf of the United 
     States (as that term is defined in section 2(a) of the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331(a)).''.

     SEC. 416. INTERNATIONAL TONNAGE MEASUREMENT OF VESSELS 
                   ENGAGED IN THE ALEUTIAN TRADE.

       (a) General Inspection Exemption.--Section 3302(c)(2) of 
     title 46, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4) of this 
     subsection, the following fish tender vessels are exempt from 
     section 3301(1), (6), (7), (11), and (12) of this title:
       ``(A) A vessel of not more than 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.
       ``(B) A vessel engaged in the Aleutian trade that is not 
     more than 2,500 gross tons as measured under section 14302 of 
     this title.''.
       (b) Other Inspection Exemption and Watch Requirement.--
     Paragraphs (3)(B) and (4) of section 3302(c) of that title 
     and section 8104 (o) of that title are each amended by 
     striking ``or an alternate tonnage measured under section 
     14302 of this title as prescribed by the Secretary under 
     section 14104 of this title'' and inserting ``or less than 
     500 gross tons as measured under section 14502 of this title, 
     or is less than 2,500 gross tons as measured under section 
     14302 of this title''.

     SEC. 417. ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to the Coast Guard 
     $400,000 to carry out an assessment of and planning for the 
     impact of an Arctic Sea Route on the indigenous people of 
     Alaska.

     SEC. 418. HOMEPORT.

       Subject to the availability of appropriations, the 
     Commandant of the Coast Guard shall homeport the Coast Guard 
     cutter HEALY in Anchorage, Alaska.

     SEC. 419. OPINIONS REGARDING WHETHER CERTAIN FACILITIES 
                   CREATE OBSTRUCTIONS TO NAVIGATION.

       In any case in which a person requests the Secretary of the 
     Army to take action to permit a wind energy facility under 
     the authority of section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 
     U.S.C. 403), the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall provide 
     an opinion in writing that states whether the proposed 
     facility would create an obstruction to navigation.

     SEC. 420. TEMPORARY AUTHORIZATION TO EXTEND THE DURATION OF 
                   LICENSES, CERTIFICATES OF REGISTRY, AND 
                   MERCHANT MARINERS' DOCUMENTS.

       (a) Licenses and Certificates of Registry.--Notwithstanding 
     sections 7106 and 7107 of title 46, United States Code, the 
     Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is 
     operating may temporarily extend the duration of a license or 
     certificate of registry issued for an individual under 
     chapter 71 of that title for up to one year, if--
       (1) the records of the individual are located at the Coast 
     Guard facility in New Orleans that was damaged by Hurricane 
     Katrina; or
       (2) the individual is a resident of Alabama, Mississippi, 
     or Louisiana.
       (b) Merchant Mariners' Documents.--Notwithstanding section 
     7302(g) of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of the 
     department in which the Coast Guard is operating may 
     temporarily extend the duration

[[Page 20424]]

     of a merchant mariners' document issued for an individual 
     under chapter 73 of that title for up to one year, if--
       (1) the records of the individual are located at the Coast 
     Guard facility in New Orleans that was damaged by Hurricane 
     Katrina; or
       (2) the individual is a resident of Alabama, Mississippi, 
     or Louisiana.
       (c) Manner of Extension.--Any extensions granted under this 
     section may be granted to individual seamen or a specifically 
     identified group of seamen.
       (d) Expiration of Authority.--The authorities provided 
     under this section expire on December 31, 2006.

     SEC. 421. TEMPORARY AUTHORIZATION TO EXTEND THE DURATION OF 
                   VESSEL CERTIFICATES OF INSPECTION.

       (a) Authority to Extend.--Notwithstanding section 3307 and 
     3711(b) of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of the 
     department in which the Coast Guard is operating may 
     temporarily extend the duration or the validity of a 
     certificate of inspection or a certificate of compliance 
     issued under chapter 33 or 37, respectively, of title 46, 
     United States Code, for up to 6 months for a vessel inspected 
     by a Coast Guard Marine Safety Office located in Alabama, 
     Mississippi, or Louisiana.
       (b) Expiration of Authority.--The authority provided under 
     this section expires on December 31, 2006.

     SEC. 422. TEMPORARY CENTER FOR PROCESSING OF LICENSES, 
                   CERTIFICATES OF REGISTRY, AND MERCHANT 
                   MARINERS' DOCUMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than October 15, 2005, the 
     Commandant of the Coast Guard shall establish a temporary 
     facility in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, that is sufficient to 
     process applications for new licenses, certificate of 
     registries, and merchant mariners' documents under chapters 
     71 or 73 of title 46, United States Code. This requirement 
     expires on December 31, 2006.
       (b) Termination of Requirement.--The Commandant is not 
     required to maintain such facility after December 31, 2006.

     SEC. 423. DETERMINATION OF NAVIGATIONAL IMPACT.

       In any case in which a person requests the Secretary of the 
     Army to take action under the authority of section 10 of the 
     Act of March 3, 1899, popularly known as the Rivers and 
     Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899 (chapter 425; 33 U.S.C. 
     403), the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall provide to the 
     Secretary an opinion in writing that states whether the 
     proposed structure or activity would create an obstruction to 
     navigation.

     SEC. 424. PORT RICHMOND.

        The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard 
     is operating acting through the Commandant of the Coast Guard 
     may not approve the security plan under section 70103(c) of 
     title 46, United States Code, for a liquefied natural gas 
     import facility at Port Richmond in Philadelphia, 
     Pennsylvania, until the Secretary conducts a vulnerability 
     assessment under section 70102(b) of such title.
       At the end of the bill add the following:

                          TITLE V--LIGHTHOUSES

     SEC. 501. TRANSFER.

       (a) Jurisdictional Transfers.--Administrative jurisdiction 
     over the following National Forest System lands in the State 
     of Alaska upon which are located any of the Coast Guard 
     facilities described in subsection (b), and over improvements 
     situated on such lands, is hereby transferred, without 
     requirement for consideration, from the Secretary of 
     Agriculture to the Secretary of the department in which the 
     Coast Guard is operating.
       (b) Facilities Described.--The facilities described in 
     subsection (a) are the following:
       (1) Guard island light station.--That area described in the 
     Guard Island Lighthouse reserve dated January 4, 1901, 
     comprising approximately 8.0 acres of National Forest 
     uplands.
       (2) Eldred rock light station.--That area described in the 
     December 30, 1975, listing on the National Register of 
     Historic Places, comprising approximately 2.4 acres.
       (3) Mary island light station.--That area described as the 
     remaining National Forest System uplands within the Mary 
     Island Lighthouse Reserve dated January 4, 1901, as amended 
     by Public Land Order 6964, dated April 5, 1993, comprising 
     approximately 1.07 acres.
       (4) Cape hinchinbrook light station.--That area described 
     in the November 1, 1957, survey prepared for the Coast Guard, 
     comprising approximately 57.4 acres.
       (c) Maps.--
       (1) Requirement to prepare.--The Commandant of the Coast 
     Guard, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     shall prepare and maintain maps of the lands transferred by 
     subsection (a), and such maps shall be on file and available 
     for public inspection in the Coast Guard District 17 office 
     in Juneau, Alaska.
       (2) Corrections and modifications.--In preparing such maps, 
     the Commandant of the Coast Guard, with the approval of the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, may make corrections and minor 
     modifications to the lands described or depicted to 
     facilitate Federal land management. Such maps, as so 
     corrected or modified, shall have the same effect as if 
     enacted in this section.
       (d) Effect of Transfer.--The lands transferred to the 
     Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is 
     operating under subsection (a)--
       (1) shall be administered by the Commandant of the Coast 
     Guard;
       (2) shall be deemed transferred from and no longer part of 
     the National Forest System; and
       (3) shall be considered not suitable for return to the 
     public domain for disposition under the general public land 
     laws.
       (e) Transfer of Land.--
       (1) Requirement.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
     Administrator of General Services, upon request by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, shall transfer to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, without consideration, any land identified in 
     subsection (b), together with the improvements thereon, for 
     administration under the laws pertaining to the National 
     Forest System, if--
       (A) the Secretary of the Interior cannot identify and 
     select an eligible entity in accordance with section 
     308(b)(2) of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 
     U.S.C. 470w-7(b)(2)) within 3 years after the date the 
     Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is 
     operating determines that the land is excess property, as 
     that term is defined in section 102(3) of title 40, United 
     States Code; or
       (B) the land reverts to the United States pursuant to 
     section 308(c)(3) of the National Historic Preservation Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 470w-7(c)(3)).
       (2) Reservations for aids to navigation.--Any action taken 
     under this subsection by the Administrator of General 
     Services shall be subject to any rights that may be reserved 
     by the Commandant of the Coast Guard for the operation and 
     maintenance of Federal aids to navigation.
       (f) Notification; Disposal of Lands by the Administrator.--
     The Administrator of General Services shall promptly notify 
     the Secretary of Agriculture upon the occurrence of any of 
     the events described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
     subsection (e)(1). If the Secretary of Agriculture does not 
     request a transfer as provided for in subsection (e) within 
     90 days after receiving such notification from the 
     Administrator, the Administrator may dispose of the property 
     in accordance with section 309 of the National Historic 
     Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470w-8) or other applicable 
     surplus real property disposal authority.
       (g) Priority.--In selecting an eligible entity to which to 
     convey, under section 308(b) of the National Historic 
     Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470w-7(b)), land referred to in 
     subsection (b), the Secretary of the Interior shall give 
     priority to any eligible entity, as defined in section 308(e) 
     of that Act (16 U.S.C. 470w-7(e)) that is the local 
     government of the community in which the land is located.

     SEC. 502. MISTY FIORDS NATIONAL MONUMENT AND WILDERNESS.

       (a) Requirement to Transfer.--Notwithstanding section 
     308(b) of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 
     470w-7(b)), if the Secretary of the department in which the 
     Coast Guard is operating determines that the Tree Point Light 
     Station is no longer needed for the purposes of the Coast 
     Guard, the Secretary shall transfer to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture all administrative jurisdiction over the Tree 
     Point Light Station, without consideration.
       (b) Effectuation of Transfer.--A transfer under this 
     subsection shall be effectuated by a letter from the 
     Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is 
     operating to the Secretary of Agriculture and, except as 
     provided in subsection (g), without any further requirements 
     for administrative or environmental analyses or examination. 
     Such transfer shall not be considered a conveyance to an 
     eligible entity pursuant to section 308(b) of the National 
     Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470w-7(b)).
       (c) Reservation for Aids to Navigation.--As part of any 
     transfer pursuant to this subsection, the Commandant of the 
     Coast Guard may reserve rights to operate and maintain 
     Federal aids to navigation at the site.
       (d) Easements and Special Use Authorizations.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including the 
     Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131), and section 703 of the 
     Alaska National Interests Lands Conservation Act (94 Stat. 
     2418; 16 U.S.C. 1132 note), with respect to the property 
     transferred under this subsection, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture--
       (1) may identify an eligible entity to be granted an 
     easement or other special use authorization and, in doing so, 
     the Secretary of Agriculture may consult with the Secretary 
     of the Interior concerning the application of policies for 
     eligible entities developed pursuant to subsection 308(b)(1) 
     of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470w-
     7(b)(1)); and
       (2) may grant an easement or other special use 
     authorization to an eligible entity, for no consideration, to 
     approximately 31 acres as described in the map entitled 
     ``Tree Point Light Station,'' dated September 24, 2004, on 
     terms and conditions that provide for--
       (A) maintenance and preservation of the structures and 
     improvements;
       (B) the protection of wilderness and National Monument 
     resources;
       (C) public safety; and
       (D) such other terms and conditions deemed appropriate by 
     the Secretary of Agriculture.

[[Page 20425]]

       (e) Actions Following Termination or Revocation.--In the 
     event that no eligible entity is identified within 3 years 
     after administrative jurisdiction is transferred to the 
     Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to this subsection, or the 
     easement or other special use authorization granted pursuant 
     to subsection (d) is terminated or revoked, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture may take such actions as are authorized by 
     subsection 110(b) of the National Historic Preservation Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 470h-2(b)).
       (f) Revocation of Withdrawals and Reservations.--Effective 
     on the date of transfer of lands as provided in this 
     subsection, the following public land withdrawals or 
     reservations for light station and lighthouse purposes on 
     lands in Alaska are revoked as to the lands transferred:
       (1) The unnumbered Executive order dated January 4, 1901, 
     as it affects the Tree Point Light Station site only.
       (2) Executive Order 4410 dated April 1, 1926, as it affects 
     the Tree Point Light Station site only.
       (g) Remediation Responsibilities not Affected.--Nothing in 
     this section shall affect any responsibilities of the 
     Commandant of the Coast Guard for the remediation of 
     hazardous substances and petroleum contamination at the Tree 
     Point Light Station consistent with existing law and 
     regulations. The Commandant and the Secretary shall execute 
     an agreement to provide for the remediation of the land and 
     structures at the Tree Point Light Station.

     SEC. 503. CAPE ST. ELIAS LIGHT STATION.

       For purposes of section 416(a)(2) of Public Law 105-383, 
     the Cape St. Elias Light Station shall comprise approximately 
     10 acres in fee, along with additional access easements 
     issued without consideration by the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     as generally described in the map entitled ``Cape St. Elias 
     Light Station,'' dated September 14, 2004. The Secretary of 
     the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall 
     keep such map on file and available for public inspection.

     SEC. 504. INCLUSION OF LIGHTHOUSE IN ST. MARKS NATIONAL 
                   WILDLIFE REFUGE, FLORIDA.

       (a) Revocation of Executive Order Dated November 12, 
     1838.--Any reservation of public land described in subsection 
     (b) for lighthouse purposes by the Executive Order dated 
     November 12, 1838, as amended by Public Land Order 5655, 
     dated January 9, 1979, is revoked.
       (b) Description of Land.--The public land referred to in 
     subsection (a) consists of approximately 8.0 acres within the 
     external boundaries of St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge in 
     Wakulla County, Florida, that is east of the Tallahassee 
     Meridian, Florida, in Township 5 South, Range 1 East, Section 
     1 (fractional) and containing all that remaining portion of 
     the unsurveyed fractional section, more particularly 
     described as follows: A parcel of land, including submerged 
     areas, beginning at a point which marks the center of the 
     light structure, thence due North (magnetic) a distance of 
     350 feet to the point of beginning a strip of land 500 feet 
     in width, the axial centerline of which runs from the point 
     of beginning due South (magnetic) a distance of 700 feet, 
     more or less, to the shoreline of Apalachee Bay, comprising 
     8.0 acres, more or less, as shown on plat dated January 2, 
     1902, by Office of L. H. Engineers, 7th and 8th District, 
     Mobile, Alabama.
       (c) Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction.--Subject to 
     subsection (f), administrative jurisdiction over the public 
     land described in subsection (b), and over all improvements, 
     structures, and fixtures located thereon, is transferred from 
     the department in which the Coast Guard is operating to the 
     Secretary of the Interior, without reimbursement.
       (d) Responsibility for Environmental Response Actions.--The 
     Coast Guard shall have sole responsibility in the Federal 
     Government to fund and conduct any response action required 
     under any applicable Federal or State law or implementing 
     regulation to address--
       (1) a release or threatened release on public land referred 
     to in subsection (b) of any hazardous substance, pollutant, 
     contaminant, petroleum, or petroleum product or derivative 
     that is located on such land on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act; or
       (2) any other release or threatened release on public land 
     referred to in subsection (b) of any hazardous substance, 
     pollutant, contaminant, petroleum, or petroleum product or 
     derivative, that results from any Coast Guard activity 
     occurring after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (e) Inclusion in Refuge.--
       (1) Inclusion.--The public land described in subsection (b) 
     shall be part of St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge.
       (2) Administration.--Subject to this subsection, the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall administer the public land 
     described in subsection (b)--
       (A) through the Director of the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service; and
       (B) in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System 
     Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) and such 
     other laws as apply to Federal real property under the sole 
     jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
       (f) Maintenance of Navigation Functions.--The transfer 
     under subsection (c), and the administration of the public 
     land described in subsection (b), shall be subject to such 
     conditions and restrictions as the Secretary of the 
     department in which the Coast Guard is operating considers 
     necessary to ensure that--
       (1) the Federal aids to navigation located at St. Marks 
     National Wildlife Refuge continue to be operated and 
     maintained by the Coast Guard for as long as they are needed 
     for navigational purposes;
       (2) the Coast Guard may remove, replace, or install any 
     Federal aid to navigation at the St. Marks National Wildlife 
     Refuge as may be necessary for navigational purposes;
       (3) the United States Fish and Wildlife Service will not 
     interfere or allow interference in any manner with any 
     Federal aid to navigation, nor hinder activities required for 
     the operation and maintenance of any Federal aid to 
     navigation, without express written approval by the Secretary 
     of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating; and
       (4) the Coast Guard may, at any time, enter the St. Marks 
     National Wildlife Refuge, without notice, for purposes of 
     operating, maintaining, and inspecting any Federal aid to 
     navigation and ensuring compliance with this subsection, to 
     the extent that it is not possible to provide advance notice.

                           TITLE VI--RESPONSE

     SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Delaware River Protection 
     Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 602. REQUIREMENT TO NOTIFY COAST GUARD OF RELEASE OF 
                   OBJECTS INTO THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED 
                   STATES.

       The Ports and Waterways Safety Act (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 15. REQUIREMENT TO NOTIFY COAST GUARD OF RELEASE OF 
                   OBJECTS INTO THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED 
                   STATES.

       ``(a) Requirement.--As soon as a person has knowledge of 
     any release from a vessel or facility into the navigable 
     waters of the United States of any object that creates an 
     obstruction prohibited under section 10 of the Act of March 
     3, 1899, popularly known as the Rivers and Harbors 
     Appropriations Act of 1899 (chapter 425; 33 U.S.C. 403), such 
     person shall notify the Secretary and the Secretary of the 
     Army of such release.
       ``(b) Restriction on Use of Notification.--Any notification 
     provided by an individual in accordance with subsection (a) 
     shall not be used against such individual in any criminal 
     case, except a prosecution for perjury or for giving a false 
     statement.''.

     SEC. 603. LIMITS ON LIABILITY.

       (a) Adjustment of Liability Limits.--
       (1) Tank vessels.--Section 1004(a)(1) of the Oil Pollution 
     Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2704(a)(1)) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
       (B) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) with respect to a single-hull vessel, including a 
     single-hull vessel fitted with double sides only or a double 
     bottom only--
       ``(i) $1,550 per gross ton for an incident that occurs in 
     2005;
       ``(ii) $1,900 per gross ton for an incident that occurs in 
     2006; or
       ``(iii) $2,250 per gross ton for an incident that occurs in 
     2007 or in any year thereafter; or
       ``(B) with respect to a double-hull vessel (other than any 
     vessel referred to in subparagraph (A))--
       ``(i) $1,350 per gross ton for an incident that occurs in 
     2005;
       ``(ii) $1,500 per gross ton for an incident that occurs in 
     2006; and
       ``(iii) $1,700 per gross ton for any incident that occurs 
     in 2007 or in any year thereafter; or''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (C), as redesignated by subparagraph 
     (A) of this paragraph--
       (i) in clause (i) by striking ``$10,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$14,000,000''; and
       (ii) in clause (ii) by striking ``$2,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$2,500,000''.
       (2) Limitation on application.--In the case of an incident 
     occurring before the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     section 1004(a)(1) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 
     U.S.C. 2704(a)(1)) shall apply as in effect immediately 
     before the effective date of this subsection.
       (b) Adjustment to Reflect Consumer Price Index.--Section 
     1004(d)(4) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 
     2704(d)(4)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(4) Adjustment to reflect consumer price index.--The 
     President shall, by regulations issued no later than 3 years 
     after the date of the enactment of the Delaware River 
     Protection Act of 2005 and no less than every 3 years 
     thereafter, adjust the limits on liability specified in 
     subsection (a) to reflect significant increases in the 
     Consumer Price Index.''.

     SEC. 604. REQUIREMENT TO UPDATE PHILADELPHIA AREA CONTINGENCY 
                   PLAN.

       The Philadelphia Area Committee established under section 
     311(j)(4) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1321(j)(4)) shall, by not later than 12 months after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act and not less than 
     annually thereafter, review

[[Page 20426]]

     and revise the Philadelphia Area Contingency Plan to include 
     available data and biological information on environmentally 
     sensitive areas of the Delaware River and Delaware Bay that 
     has been collected by Federal and State surveys.

     SEC. 605. SUBMERGED OIL REMOVAL.

       (a) Amendments.--Title VII of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 
     is amended--
       (1) in section 7001(c)(4)(B) (33 U.S.C. 2761(c)(4)(B)) by 
     striking ``RIVERA,'' and inserting ``RIVERA and the T/V ATHOS 
     I;''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 7002. SUBMERGED OIL PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Program.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Undersecretary of Commerce for 
     Oceans and Atmosphere, in conjunction with the Commandant of 
     the Coast Guard, shall establish a program to detect, 
     monitor, and evaluate the environmental effects of submerged 
     oil. Such program shall include the following elements:
       ``(A) The development of methods to remove, disperse or 
     otherwise diminish the persistence of submerged oil.
       ``(B) The development of improved models and capacities for 
     predicting the environmental fate, transport, and effects of 
     submerged oil.
       ``(C) The development of techniques to detect and monitor 
     submerged oil.
       ``(2) Report.--The Secretary of Commerce shall, no later 
     than 3 years after the date of the enactment of the Delaware 
     River Protection Act of 2005, submit to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate a report on the activities carried out 
     under this subsection and activities proposed to be carried 
     out under this subsection.
       ``(3) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary of Commerce $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2010 to carry out this subsection.
       ``(b) Demonstration Project.--
       ``(1) Removal of submerged oil.--The Commandant of the 
     Coast Guard, in conjunction with the Undersecretary of 
     Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, shall conduct a 
     demonstration project for the purpose of developing and 
     demonstrating technologies and management practices to remove 
     submerged oil from the Delaware River and other navigable 
     waters.
       ``(2) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Commandant of the Coast Guard $2,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2006 through 2010 to carry out this 
     subsection.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections in section 2 
     of such Act is amended by inserting after the item relating 
     to section 7001 the following:

``Sec. 7002. Submerged oil program.''.

     SEC. 606. DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY OIL SPILL ADVISORY 
                   COMMITTEE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the Delaware River 
     and Bay Oil Spill Advisory Committee (in this section 
     referred to as the ``Committee'').
       (b) Functions.--
       (1) In general.--The Committee shall, by not later than 1 
     year after the date the Commandant of the Coast Guard (in 
     this section referred to as the ``Commandant'') completes 
     appointment of the members of the Committee, make 
     recommendations to the Commandant, the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate on methods to improve the 
     prevention of and response to future oil spills in the 
     Delaware River and Delaware Bay.
       (2) Meetings.--The Committee--
       (A) shall hold its first meeting not later than 60 days 
     after the completion of the appointment of the members of the 
     Committee; and
       (B) shall meet thereafter at the call of the Chairman.
       (c) Membership.--The Committee shall consist of 15 members 
     who have particular expertise, knowledge, and experience 
     regarding the transportation, equipment, and techniques that 
     are used to ship cargo and to navigate vessels in the 
     Delaware River and Delaware Bay, as follows:
       (1) Three members who are employed by port authorities that 
     oversee operations on the Delaware River or have been 
     selected to represent these entities, of whom--
       (A) one member must be an employee or representative of the 
     Port of Wilmington;
       (B) one member must be an employee or representative of the 
     South Jersey Port Corporation; and
       (C) one member must be an employee or representative of the 
     Philadelphia Regional Port Authority.
       (2) Two members who represent organizations that operate 
     tugs or barges that utilize the port facilities on the 
     Delaware River and Delaware Bay.
       (3) Two members who represent shipping companies that 
     transport cargo by vessel from ports on the Delaware River 
     and Delaware Bay.
       (4) Two members who represent operators of oil refineries 
     on the Delaware River and Delaware Bay.
       (5) Two members who represent environmental and 
     conservation interests.
       (6) Two members who represent State-licensed pilots who 
     work on the Delaware River and Delaware Bay.
       (7) One member who represents labor organizations that load 
     and unload cargo at ports on the Delaware River and Delaware 
     Bay.
       (8) One member who represents the general public.
       (d) Appointment of Members.--The Commandant shall appoint 
     the members of the Committee, after soliciting nominations by 
     notice published in the Federal Register.
       (e) Chairman and Vice Chairman.--The Committee shall elect, 
     by majority vote at its first meeting, one of the members of 
     the Committee as the Chairman and one of the members as the 
     Vice Chairman. The Vice Chairman shall act as Chairman in the 
     absence of or incapacity of the Chairman, or in the event of 
     vacancy in the Office of the Chairman.
       (f) Pay and Expenses.--
       (1) Prohibition on pay.--Members of the Committee who are 
     not officers or employees of the United States shall serve 
     without pay. Members of the Committee who are officers or 
     employees of the United States shall receive no additional 
     pay on account of their service on the Committee.
       (2) Expenses.--While away from their homes or regular 
     places of business, members of the Committee may be allowed 
     travel expenses, including per diem, in lieu of subsistence, 
     as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code.
       (g) Termination.--The Committee shall terminate one year 
     after the completion of the appointment of the members of the 
     Committee.

     SEC. 607. MARITIME FIRE AND SAFETY ACTIVITIES.

       The Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (Public 
     Law 107-295) is amended--
       (1) in section 407--
       (A) in the heading by striking ``LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``$987,400'' and inserting ``$1,500,000''; 
     and
       (2) in the table of contents in section 1(b) by striking 
     the item relating to section 407 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 407. Maritime fire and safety activities.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment and on behalf of the ranking members, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Filner), and thank them for working so closely with us on this 
amendment.
  One of the key provisions of this amendment is it authorizes an 
additional $60 million for the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2005 for funds 
spent on responding to Hurricane Katrina which are not being 
reimbursed. Failure to reimburse the Service for the work it has done 
in New Orleans means that other Coast Guard missions will suffer.
  The amendment also temporarily extends existing mariner documents and 
vessel certificates for mariners and vessels whose paperwork was held 
in New Orleans and establishes a temporary center for the processing of 
new mariner documents. Because of the effects of the hurricane on the 
Coast Guard facilities and the need for new mariners to aid in 
reconstruction efforts, these temporary actions are necessary to ensure 
the smoothest possible return to normal operations of the important 
maritime industry in the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico.
  Another important provision in this amendment is the Delaware River 
Protection Act, legislation that I introduced with a number of my 
colleagues to guard against another oil spill like the one that we 
suffered last November in the Delaware River. The bill unanimously 
passed the House in June, but, unfortunately, the other body has yet to 
act.
  The Delaware River Protection Act would require persons to notify the 
Coast Guard in the event that an object is released into U.S. waters 
that could cause an obstruction to navigation. The Coast Guard and the 
Army Corps of Engineers have found three very large objects in the area 
of the Delaware where the Athos I ran aground last November. Had the 
notification requirement been in place at the time any of these objects 
had been released into the water, the Coast Guard could have marked the 
location of these objects and had them removed.
  This provision will improve maritime safety and will protect the 
environment and the economies of our local

[[Page 20427]]

communities by preventing similar collisions in the future.
  The Delaware River Protection Act also directs the President to 
adjust liability limits for vessel owners to reflect changes in the 
Consumer Price Index since 1990 and establishes a research program to 
develop and test technologies to detect and remove submerged oil from 
U.S. waterways. This amendment will enhance the Federal Government's 
oil spill prevention and response capabilities.
  I would like to thank in particular the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Saxton), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania 
(Ms. Schwartz), and a host of others, along with our chairman and the 
ranking member for working to include this. I urge everyone to support 
this amendment.

                              {time}  1500


 Amendment Offered by Mr. Oberstar to Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. 
                                LoBiondo

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Oberstar to amendment No. 11 
     offered by Mr. LoBiondo:
       In the proposed section 413--
       (1) strike ``is amended'' and all that follows through 
     ``paragraph (3)'' and insert ``is amended in paragraph (3)''; 
     and
       (2) strike ``; and'' and all that follows through the end 
     of the section and insert a period.

  Mr. OBERSTAR (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment to the amendment be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to square 
what we are doing in the Coast Guard reauthorization for background 
checks with what we have already done in the Transportation Security 
Administration with respect to felony convictions of personnel to be 
hired by the agency in the TSA legislation concerning governing 
aviation.
  There is no limitation on the authority of the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to go back beyond 7 years into the job applicant's background 
for convictions relating to espionage, sedition, treason, murder, 
conspiracy to attempt crimes; and we ought to have the same provisions 
in the Coast Guard security responsibilities and not prohibit the 
Secretary to go back beyond 7 years to look for violations that relate 
to espionage, sedition, treason, and crimes listed in our Homeland 
Security Act that relate to terrorism or State laws that are 
comparable.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
to me.
  My concern is, very frankly, this has been in the manager's amendment 
for 3 months, and it is not new, but my big concern, and I understand 
he is trying to make it uniform with, I believe, the airline industry; 
is that correct?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. The airline provisions, yes; and the HAZMAT section as 
well.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, the other concern I have is the Homeland Security Act itself 
that we passed out of our committee had this provision in it, 7 years; 
and what I do not want is to preclude someone from being employed in a 
port, that, if there has been a felony created that is not terrorist 
related, sabotage related, or secession related, he be precluded from 
being able to be hired.
  Some people say if he is a felon, he should not be hired. I can tell 
the Members that the business I am in, a lot of people in their earlier 
years probably got into some sort of trouble sometime, but they are not 
terrorists. These people are trying to make a good living, trying to 
provide for society and trying to be helpful to this Nation and are not 
a threat. I do not want someone unable to obtain employment because of 
beyond 7 years, 15 years, 20 years, and have that person not be 
eligible to be employed.
  The gentleman has heard this argument before. I believe he was on the 
Committee on Homeland Security meeting when I presented that, and it 
was adopted, and it passed on this floor. In fact, it is in the bill. 
It has not become law because, as the gentleman knows, we have not gone 
to conference with the Senate.
  So I understand what the gentleman is trying to do, but I ask two 
things from him: if he would consider not offering the amendment, 
withdrawing it, or not asking for a vote on it, and we will not have a 
vote on it, or we will, in turn, take care of this in conference, 
because he and I are going to be on the conference. I know what he is 
trying to do, but I do not want someone to be punished because they are 
really good citizens today.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I agree with the 
chairman about not reaching back. We confronted this issue in aviation 
in the legislation implementing the recommendations of the Pan Am 103 
Commission requiring 10-year criminal background checks but not going 
further than that and having consideration of amnesty for those who 
paid their dues to society. We faced that.
  But what we are dealing with here, as we did in the Maritime Security 
Act, the Port Security Grants Act, as we know it, is to allow the 
Secretary to go back for espionage, for sedition, for treason, for 
items that are related to security matters. The law applies to felonies 
in which the Secretary decides the individual is a terrorism security 
risk.
  If the chairman is saying withhold on the amendment this time and we 
will work to include this language with these limitations in the 
conference, I will take the chairman at his word.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, that is what I expect to do. And, 
again, I think we can work this out. I am just so concerned that, yes, 
those that have or did have a potential to sabotage and sedition, et 
cetera, they should not be employed.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Oberstar was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, other than that, I do not want to 
have the inability to have someone hired, because they can do the job. 
So we can work it out.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I concur in that 
concern, but I do want to have uniformity of application of law in the 
security arena, and I think the chairman agrees with that.
  I further do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that we would have 
intervention by the Homeland Security if we struck this language from 
the manager's amendment because then it would not be subject to their 
jurisdiction. However, the chairman is an honorable man. He and I have 
had many agreements on a handshake, and we have worked things out.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The gentleman has my word on it, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's 
amendment to the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2005. 
The amendment includes some very important provision that were 
previously passed by this chamber in a bill called the Delaware River 
Protection Act. The Delaware River Protection Act was primarily 
authored and introduced earlier in the year by my esteemed colleague, 
Congressman Frank LoBiondo. I was pleased to be a cosponsor of that 
legislation and I am greatly pleased that the language is included in 
the manager's amendment. The language is part of a bipartisan effort to 
protect the ecologically and economically significant Delaware River 
waterway. In November 2004, the hull of the oil tanker, Athos, was torn 
open by a submerged object and spilled an estimated 265,000 gallons of 
oil

[[Page 20428]]

into our river. The cleanup efforts have cost at least $167 million 
thus far and the impact to the wetlands will be felt for years to come. 
We must prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future, as it is 
an economic as well as an environmental imperative; the Delaware River 
must remain open to commercial traffic. The language in the Delaware 
River Protection Act, which will now be part of the Coast Guard and 
Maritime Transportation Act, is a strong step to secure this precious 
resource.
  This language increases the liability limits on single-hull tankers 
under the Oil Pollution Act, thereby encouraging the adoption of more 
robust double-hull tankers. In addition, it requires mandatory 
reporting of objects that are lost overboard to the Coast Guard. There 
are also provisions to prepare for the contingency of another spill by 
updating the current response plan, establishing a committee to report 
to Congress on ways to improve oil spill response and prevention, and 
establishing a pilot project on the Delaware to test techniques to 
recover submerged oil. I commend Congressman LoBiondo for his diligent 
work on this important effort. I also thank my colleagues, 
Representatives Allyson Schwartz, Jim Saxton, and Mike Castle for their 
input and support.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 1?
  The Clerk will designate section 2.
  The text of section 2 is as follows:

     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

Sec. 201. Extension of Coast Guard vessel anchorage and movement 
              authority.
Sec. 202. International training and technical assistance.
Sec. 203. Officer promotion.
Sec. 204. Coast Guard band director.
Sec. 205. Authority for one-step turnkey design-build contracting.
Sec. 206. Reserve recall authority.
Sec. 207. Reserve officer distribution.
Sec. 208. Expansion of use of auxiliary equipment to support coast 
              guard missions.
Sec. 209. Coast Guard history fellowships.

                   TITLE III--SHIPPING AND NAVIGATION

Sec. 301. Treatment of ferries as passenger vessels.
Sec. 302. Great Lakes pilotage annual ratemaking.
Sec. 303. Certification of vessel nationality in drug smuggling cases.
Sec. 304. LNG Tankers.

                        TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 401. Technical corrections.
Sec. 402. Authorization of junior reserve officers training program 
              pilot program.
Sec. 403. Transfer.
Sec. 404. Long-range vessel tracking system.
Sec. 405. Report.
Sec. 406. Training of cadets at United States Merchant Marine Academy.
Sec. 407. Marine casualty investigations study.
Sec. 408. Conveyance of decommissioned Coast Guard Cutter MACKINAW.
Sec. 409. Deepwater implementation report.
Sec. 410. Helicopters.
Sec. 411. Reports from mortgagees of vessels.
Sec. 412. Newtown Creek, New York City, New York.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 2?
  The Clerk will designate title I.
  The text of title I is as follows:

                         TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Funds are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 
     2006 for necessary expenses of the Coast Guard as follows:
       (1) For the operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard, 
     $5,586,400,000, of which $24,500,000 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.
       (2) For the acquisition, construction, rebuilding, and 
     improvement of aids to navigation, shore and offshore 
     facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment 
     related thereto, $1,903,821,000, of which--
       (A) $20,000,000 shall 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), to remain 
     available until expended;
       (B) $1,316,300,000 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 Systems; 
     and
       (C) $284,369,000 is authorized for sustainment of legacy 
     vessels and aircraft, including equipment related thereto, 
     and other activities that constitute the Integrated Deepwater 
     Systems.
       (3) To the Commandant of the Coast Guard 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, $24,000,000, to remain available until expended, 
     of which $3,500,000 shall 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 the 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, $1,014,080,000, 
     to remain available until expended.
       (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, $35,900,000.
       (6) For environmental compliance and restoration at Coast 
     Guard facilities (other than parts and equipment associated 
     with operation and maintenance), $12,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.
       (7) For the Coast Guard Reserve program, including 
     personnel and training costs, equipment, and services, 
     $119,000,000.

     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 for 
     the years ending on September 30, 2005, and September 30, 
     2006.
       (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 2006, 
     2,500 student years.
       (2) For flight training for fiscal year 2006, 125 student 
     years.
       (3) For professional training in military and civilian 
     institutions for fiscal year 2006, 350 student years.
       (4) For officer acquisition for fiscal year 2006, 1,200 
     student years.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title I?
  The Clerk will designate title II.
  The text of title II is as follows:

                         TITLE II--COAST GUARD

     SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF COAST GUARD VESSEL ANCHORAGE AND 
                   MOVEMENT AUTHORITY.

        Section 91 of title 14, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) As used in this section `navigable waters of the 
     United States' includes all waters of the territorial sea of 
     the United States as described in Presidential Proclamation 
     No. 5928 of December 27, 1988.''.

     SEC. 202. INTERNATIONAL TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 149 of title 14, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by amending the section heading to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 149. Assistance to foreign governments and maritime 
       authorities'';

       (2) by inserting before the existing undesignated text the 
     following new subsection designation and heading: ``(a) 
     Detail of Members to Assist Foreign Governments.--''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Technical Assistance to Foreign Maritime 
     Authorities.--The Commandant, in coordination with the 
     Secretary of State, may, in conjunction with regular Coast 
     Guard operations, provide technical assistance, including law 
     enforcement and maritime safety and security training, to 
     foreign navies, coast guards, and other maritime 
     authorities.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The item related to such section 
     in the analysis at the beginning of chapter 7 of title 14, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``149. Assistance to foreign governments and maritime authorities.''.

     SEC. 203. OFFICER PROMOTION.

        Section 257 of title 14, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) The Secretary may waive subsection (a) of this 
     section to the extent necessary to allow officers described 
     therein to have at least two opportunities for consideration 
     for promotion to the next higher grade as officers below the 
     promotion zone.''.

     SEC. 204. COAST GUARD BAND DIRECTOR.

       (a) Band Director Appointment and Grade.--Section 336 of 
     title 14, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by amending the first sentence to read as follows: 
     ``The Secretary may designate as the director any individual 
     determined by the Secretary to possess the necessary 
     qualifications.''; and
       (B) in the second sentence, by striking ``a member so 
     designated'' and inserting ``an individual so designated'';
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking ``of a member'' and inserting ``of an 
     individual''; and

[[Page 20429]]

       (B) by striking ``of lieutenant (junior grade) or 
     lieutenant'' and inserting ``determined by the Secretary to 
     be most appropriate to the qualifications and experience of 
     the appointed individual'';
       (3) in subsection (d), by striking ``A member'' and 
     inserting ``An individual''; and
       (4) in subsection (e)--
       (A) by striking ``When a member's designation is revoked,'' 
     and inserting ``When an individual's designation is 
     revoked,''; and
       (B) by striking ``option:'' and inserting ``option--''.
       (b) Current Director.--The individual serving as Coast 
     Guard band director on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     may be immediately promoted to a commissioned grade, not to 
     exceed captain, determined by the Secretary to be most 
     appropriate to the qualifications and experience of that 
     individual.

     SEC. 205. AUTHORITY FOR ONE-STEP TURNKEY DESIGN-BUILD 
                   CONTRACTING.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 17 of title 14, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 677. Turnkey selection procedures

       ``(a) Authority to Use.--The Secretary may use one-step 
     turnkey selection procedures for the purpose of entering into 
     contracts for construction projects.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `one-step turn-key selection procedures' 
     means procedures used for the selection of a contractor on 
     the basis of price and other evaluation criteria to perform, 
     in accordance with the provisions of a firm fixed-price 
     contract, both the design and construction of a facility 
     using performance specifications supplied by the Secretary.
       ``(2) The term `construction' includes the construction, 
     procurement, development, conversion, or extension, of any 
     facility.
       ``(3) The term `facility' means a building, structure, or 
     other improvement to real property.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis at the beginning of 
     such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating 
     to section 676 the following:

``677. Turnkey selection procedures.''.

     SEC. 206. RESERVE RECALL AUTHORITY.

        Section 712(a) of title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``, or to aid in prevention of an 
     imminent,'' after ``during'';
       (2) by striking ``or'' before ``catastrophe'';
       (3) by inserting ``, act of terrorism as defined in section 
     2(15) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
     101(15)), or transportation security incident as defined in 
     section 70101 of title 46'' after ``catastrophe'';
       (4) by striking ``thirty days in any four-month period'' 
     and inserting ``60 days in any 4-month period''; and
       (5) by striking ``sixty days in any two-year period'' and 
     inserting ``120 days in any 2-year period''.

     SEC. 207. RESERVE OFFICER DISTRIBUTION.

        Section 724 of title 14, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting after the first 
     sentence the following: ``Reserve officers on an active-duty 
     list shall not be counted as part of the authorized number of 
     officers in the Reserve.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking so much as precedes 
     paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(b)(1) The Secretary shall, at least once each year, make 
     a computation to determine the number of Reserve officers in 
     an active status authorized to be serving in each grade. The 
     number in each grade shall be computed by applying the 
     applicable percentage to the total number of such officers 
     serving in an active status on the date the computation is 
     made. The number of Reserve officers in an active status 
     below the grade of rear admiral (lower half) shall be 
     distributed by pay grade so as not to exceed percentages of 
     commissioned officers authorized by section 42(b) of this 
     title. When the actual number of Reserve officers in an 
     active status in a particular pay grade is less than the 
     maximum percentage authorized, the difference may be applied 
     to the number in the next lower grade. A Reserve officer may 
     not be reduced in rank or grade solely because of a reduction 
     in an authorized number as provided for in this subsection, 
     or because an excess results directly from the operation of 
     law.''.

     SEC. 208. EXPANSION OF USE OF AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT TO SUPPORT 
                   COAST GUARD MISSIONS.

       (a) Use of Motorized Vehicles.--Section 826 of title 14, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by designating the existing undesignated text as 
     subsection (a); and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) The Coast Guard may utilize to carry out its 
     functions and duties as authorized by the Secretary any 
     motorized vehicle placed at its disposition by any member of 
     the Auxiliary, by any corporation, partnership, or 
     association, or by any State or political subdivision 
     thereof, to tow Federal Government property.''.
       (b) Appropriations for Facilities.--Section 830(a) of title 
     14, United States Code, is amended by striking ``or radio 
     station'' and inserting ``radio station, or motorized 
     vehicle'' each place it appears.

     SEC. 209. COAST GUARD HISTORY FELLOWSHIPS.

       (a) Fellowships Authorized.--Chapter 9 of title 14, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 197. Coast Guard history fellowships

       ``(a) Fellowships.--The Commandant of the Coast Guard shall 
     prescribe regulations under which the Commandant may award 
     fellowships in Coast Guard history to individuals who are 
     eligible under subsection (b).
       ``(b) Eligible Individuals.--An individual shall be 
     eligible under this subsection if the individual is a citizen 
     or national of the United States and--
       ``(1) is a graduate student in United States history;
       ``(2) has completed all requirements for a doctoral degree 
     other than preparation of a dissertation; and
       ``(3) agrees to prepare a dissertation in a subject area of 
     Coast Guard history determined by the Commandant.
       ``(c) Regulations.--The regulations prescribed under this 
     section shall include--
       ``(1) the criteria for award of fellowships;
       ``(2) the procedures for selecting recipients of 
     fellowships;
       ``(3) the basis for determining the amount of a fellowship; 
     and
       ``(4) subject to the availability of appropriations, the 
     total amount that may be awarded as fellowships during an 
     academic year.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis at the beginning of 
     such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following:

``197. Coast Guard history fellowships.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title II?
  The Clerk will designate title III.
  The text of title III is as follows:

                   TITLE III--SHIPPING AND NAVIGATION

     SEC. 301. TREATMENT OF FERRIES AS PASSENGER VESSELS.

       (a) Ferry Defined.--Section 2101 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after paragraph (10a) the 
     following:
       ``(10b) `ferry' means a vessel that is used on a regular 
     schedule--
       ``(A) to provide transportation only between places that 
     are not more than 300 miles apart, and
       ``(B) to transport only--
       ``(i) passengers, or
       ``(ii) vehicles, or railroad cars, that are being used, or 
     have been used, in transporting passengers or goods.''.
       (b) Passenger Vessels That Are Ferries.--Section 2101(22) 
     of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     subparagraph (B);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) that is a ferry carrying a passenger.''.
       (c) Small Passenger Vessels That Are Ferries.--Section 
     2101(35) of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     subparagraph (C);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) that is a ferry carrying more than 6 passengers.''.

     SEC. 302. GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE ANNUAL RATEMAKING.

        Section 9303 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (f) by striking ``The'' and inserting 
     ``Before March 1 of each year, the''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) The Secretary shall ensure that the number of full-
     time equivalent employees assigned to carry out this section 
     is not less than 4.''.

     SEC. 303. CERTIFICATION OF VESSEL NATIONALITY IN DRUG 
                   SMUGGLING CASES.

        Section 3(c)(2) of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act 
     (46 U.S.C. App. 1903(c)(2)) is amended in the matter 
     following subparagraph (C) by striking ``denial of such claim 
     of registry'' and inserting ``response''.

     SEC. 304. LNG TANKERS.

       (a) Program.--The Secretary of Transportation shall develop 
     and implement a program to promote the transportation of 
     liquefied natural gas to the United States on United States-
     flag vessels.
       (b) Amendment to Deepwater Port Act.--Section 4 of the 
     Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C. 1503) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) To promote the security of the United States, the 
     Secretary shall give top priority to the processing of a 
     license under this Act for liquefied natural gas facilities 
     that will be supplied with liquefied natural gas by United 
     States flag-vessels.''.
       (c) Report.--Within 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate on the 
     implementation of this section.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title III?
  The Clerk will designate title IV.
  The text of title IV is as follows:

                        TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 401. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

       (a) Requirements for Cooperative Agreements for Voluntary 
     Services.--Section 93(a)(19) of title 14, United States Code, 
     as amended by section 201 of the Coast Guard and Maritime 
     Transportation Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-293; 118 Stat. 
     1031), is amended by redesignating subparagraphs (1) and (2) 
     in order as subparagraphs (A) and (B).

[[Page 20430]]

       (b) Correction of Amendment to Chapter Analysis.--Section 
     212(b) of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 
     2004 (Public Law 108-293; 118 Stat. 1037) is amended by 
     inserting ``of title 14'' after ``chapter 17''.
       (c) Recommendations to Congress by Commandant of the Coast 
     Guard.--Section 93(a) of title 14, United States Code, as 
     amended by sections 201 and 217 of the Coast Guard and 
     Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-293; 118 
     Stat. 1031, 1038), is amended by redesignating paragraph (y) 
     as paragraph (24).
       (d) Correction of Reference to Ports and Waterways Safety 
     Act.--Section 302 of the Coast Guard and Maritime 
     Transportation Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-293; 118 Stat. 
     1041) is amended by striking ``of 1972''.
       (e) Technical Correction of Penalty.--Section 4311(b) of 
     title 46, United States Code, as amended by section 406 of 
     the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 
     (Public Law 108-293; 118 Stat. 1043), is amended by striking 
     ``4307(a)of'' and inserting ``4307(a) of''.
       (f) Determining Adequacy of Potable Water.--Section 3305(a) 
     of title 46, United States Code, as amended by section 
     416(b)(3) of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act 
     of 2004 (Public Law 108-293; 118 Stat. 1047), is amended by 
     moving paragraph (2) two ems to the left, so that the 
     material preceding subparagraph (A) of such paragraph aligns 
     with the left-hand margin of paragraph (1) of such section.
       (g) Renewal of Advisory Group.--Section 418(a) of the Coast 
     Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (Public Law 
     108-293; 118 Stat. 1049) is amended by striking ``of 
     September 30, 2005'' and inserting ``on September 30, 2005''.
       (h) Technical Corrections Relating to References to 
     National Driver Register.--
       (1) Amendment instruction.--Section 609(1) of the Coast 
     Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (Public Law 
     108-293; 118 Stat. 1058) is amended in the matter preceding 
     subparagraph (A) by striking ``7302'' and inserting 
     ``7302(c)''.
       (2) Omitted word.--Section 7302(c) of title 46, United 
     States Code, as amended by section 609(1) of the Coast Guard 
     and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-293; 
     118 Stat. 1058), is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``section'' before ``30305(b)(5)''; and
       (B) by inserting ``section'' before ``30304(a)(3)(A)''.
       (3) Extraneous u.s.c. reference.--Section 7703(3) of title 
     46, United States Code, as amended by section 609(3) of the 
     Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (Public 
     Law 108-293; 118 Stat. 1058), is amended by striking ``(23 
     U.S.C. 401 note)''.
       (i) Vessel Response Plans for Nontank Vessels.--
       (1) Correction of vessel references.--Section 311 of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321), as 
     amended by section 701 of the Coast Guard and Maritime 
     Transportation Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-293; 118 Stat. 
     1067), is amended by striking ``non-tank'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``nontank''.
       (2) Punctuation error.--Section 701(b)(9) of the Coast 
     Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (Public Law 
     108-293; 118 Stat. 1068) is amended by inserting close 
     quotation marks after ``each tank vessel''.
       (j) Punctuation Error.--Section 5006(c) of the Oil 
     Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2736(c)), as amended by 
     section 704(1) of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation 
     Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-293; 118 Stat. 1075), is amended 
     by inserting a comma after ``October 1, 2012''.
       (k) Correction to Subtitle Designation.--
       (1) Redesignation.--Title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by redesignating subtitle VI as subtitle VII.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of subtitles at the 
     beginning of title 46, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking the item relating to subtitle VI and inserting the 
     following:

``VII. MISCELLANEOUS...........................................70101''.

       (l) Corrections to Chapter 701 of Title 46, United States 
     Code.--Chapter 701 of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended as follows:
       (1) Sections 70118 and 70119, as added by section 801 of 
     the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 
     (Public Law 108-293; 118 Stat. 1078), are redesignated as 
     sections 70117 and 70118, respectively, and moved to appear 
     immediately after section 70116 of title 46, United States 
     Code.
       (2) Sections 70117 and 70118, as added by section 802 of 
     such Act (Public Law 108-293; 118 Stat. 1078), are 
     redesignated as sections 70120 and 70121, respectively, and 
     moved to appear immediately after section 70119 of title 46, 
     United States Code.
       (3) In section 70120(a), as redesignated by paragraph (2) 
     of this section, by striking ``section 70120'' and inserting 
     ``section 70119''.
       (4) In section 70121(a), as redesignated by paragraph (2) 
     of this section, by striking ``section 70120'' and inserting 
     ``section 70119''.
       (5) In the analysis at the beginning of the chapter, by 
     striking the items relating to sections 70117 through the 
     second 70119 and inserting the following:

``70117. Firearms, arrests, and seizure of property.
``70118. Enforcement by State and local officers.
``70119. Civil penalty.
``70120. In rem liability for civil penalties and certain costs.
``70121. Withholding of clearance.''.

       (m) Area Maritime Security Advisory Committees; Margin 
     Alignment.--Section 70112(b) of title 46, United States Code, 
     as amended by section 806 of the Coast Guard and Maritime 
     Transportation Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-293; 118 Stat. 
     1082), is amended by moving paragraph (5) two ems to the 
     left, so that the left-hand margin of paragraph (5) aligns 
     with the left-hand margin of paragraph (4) of such section.
       (n) Technical Correction Regarding Tank Vessel 
     Environmental Equivalency Evaluation Index.--Section 
     4115(e)(3) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (46 U.S.C. 3703a 
     note) is amended by striking ``hull'' the second place it 
     appears.
       (o) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect August 
     9, 2004.

     SEC. 402. AUTHORIZATION OF JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING 
                   PROGRAM PILOT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the department in which 
     the Coast Guard is operating (in this section referred to as 
     the ``Secretary'') may carry out a pilot program to establish 
     and maintain a junior reserve officers training program in 
     cooperation with the Camden County High School in Camden 
     County, North Carolina.
       (b) Program Requirements.--A pilot program carried out by 
     the Secretary under this section shall provide to students at 
     Camden County High School--
       (1) instruction in subject areas relating to operations of 
     the Coast Guard; and
       (2) training in skills which are useful and appropriate for 
     a career in the Coast Guard.
       (c) Provision of Additional Support.--To carry out a pilot 
     program under this section, the Secretary may provide to 
     Camden County High School--
       (1) assistance in course development, instruction, and 
     other support activities;
       (2) commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast 
     Guard to serve as administrators and instructors; and
       (3) necessary and appropriate course materials, equipment, 
     and uniforms.
       (d) Employment of Retired Coast Guard Personnel.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) of this 
     subsection, the Secretary may authorize the Camden County 
     High School to employ as administrators and instructors for 
     the pilot program retired Coast Guard and Coast Guard Reserve 
     commissioned, warrant, and petty officers who request that 
     employment and who are approved by the Secretary and Camden 
     County High School.
       (2) Authorized pay.--
       (A) In general.--Retired members employed under paragraph 
     (1) of this subsection are entitled to receive their retired 
     or retainer pay and an additional amount of not more than the 
     difference between--
       (i) the amount the individual would be paid as pay and 
     allowance if they were considered to have been ordered to 
     active duty during that period of employment; and
       (ii) the amount of retired pay the individual is entitled 
     to receive during that period.
       (B) Payment to school.--The Secretary shall pay to Camden 
     County High School an amount equal to one half of the amount 
     described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, from funds 
     appropriated for that purpose.
       (C) Not duty or duty training.--Notwithstanding any other 
     law, while employed under this subsection, an individual is 
     not considered to be on active duty or inactive duty 
     training.

     SEC. 403. TRANSFER.

       Section 602(b)(2) of the Coast Guard and Maritime 
     Transportation Act of 2004 (118 Stat. 1051) is amended by 
     striking ``to be conveyed'' and all that follows through the 
     period and inserting ``to be conveyed to CAS Foundation, Inc. 
     (a nonprofit corporation under the laws of the State of 
     Indiana.''.

     SEC. 404. LONG-RANGE VESSEL TRACKING SYSTEM.

       (a) Pilot Project.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, the Secretary of the department in which the 
     Coast Guard is operating, acting through the Commandant of 
     the Coast Guard, shall conduct a pilot program for long range 
     tracking of up to 2,000 vessels using satellite systems 
     pursuant to section 70115 of title 46, United States Code.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of the department in 
     which the Coast Guard is operating $4,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2006 to carry out the pilot program authorized under 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 405. REPORT.

       (a) In General.--The Commandant of the Coast Guard shall 
     review the adequacy of assets described in subsection (b) to 
     carry out the Coast Guard's missions including search and 
     rescue, illegal drug and migrant interdiction, and fisheries 
     law enforcement. Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Commandant shall submit a 
     report to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate that 
     includes the findings of that review and any recommendations 
     to enhance mission capabilities in those areas.
       (b) Areas of Review.--The report under subsection (a) shall 
     provide information and recommendations on the following 
     assets:
       (1) Coast Guard aircraft, including helicopters, stationed 
     at Air Station Detroit in the State of Michigan.
       (2) Coast Guard vessels and aircraft stationed in the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
       (3) Coast Guard vessels and aircraft stationed in the State 
     of Louisiana along the Lower Mississippi River between the 
     Port of New Orleans and the Red River.

[[Page 20431]]



     SEC. 406. TRAINING OF CADETS AT UNITED STATES MERCHANT MARINE 
                   ACADEMY.

        Section 1303(f) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 App. 
     U.S.C. 1295b(f)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (3) by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) on any other vessel considered necessary or 
     appropriate or in the national interest.''.

     SEC. 407. MARINE CASUALTY INVESTIGATIONS STUDY.

       (a) Study.--Within 3 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall enter into 
     an agreement with National Institute for Occupational Safety 
     and Health for a study of the Coast Guard marine casualty 
     investigation program to examine the extent to which marine 
     casualty investigations and reports--
       (1) result in information and recommendations that prevent 
     similar casualties;
       (2) minimize the effect of similar casualties, given that 
     it has occurred; and
       (3) maximize lives saved in similar casualties, given that 
     the vessel has become uninhabitable.
       (b) Included Elements.--To promote the safety of all those 
     who work on or travel by water and to protect the marine 
     environment, the study shall include consideration of--
       (1) the adequacy of resources devoted to marine casualty 
     investigations considering caseload, training and experience 
     of marine casualty investigators, and duty assignment 
     practices;
       (2) investigation standards and methods, including a 
     comparison of the formal and informal investigation 
     processes;
       (3) use of best investigation practices considering 
     transportation investigation practices used by other Federal 
     agencies and foreign governments, including the British MAIB 
     program;
       (4) marine casualty data base management and use of 
     casualty data and information as an input to marine casualty 
     prevention programs;
       (5) the extent to which marine casualty data and 
     information have been used to improve the survivability and 
     habitability of vessels involved in marine casualties; and
       (6) any changes to current statutes that would clarify 
     Coast Guard responsibilities for marine casualty 
     investigations and report.
       (c) Report to Congress.--The study, along with its findings 
     and recommendations, shall be provided to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate within 18 months after entering 
     into a contract with the Institute.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $625,000 to carry out the study required 
     by this section.

     SEC. 408. CONVEYANCE OF DECOMMISSIONED COAST GUARD CUTTER 
                   MACKINAW.

       (a) In General.--Upon the scheduled decommissioning of the 
     Coast Guard Cutter MACKINAW, the Commandant of the Coast 
     Guard shall convey all right, title, and interest of the 
     United States in and to that vessel to the City and County of 
     Cheboygan, Michigan, without consideration, if--
       (1) the recipient agrees--
       (A) to use the vessel for purposes of a museum;
       (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 for purposes of a museum.

     SEC. 409. DEEPWATER IMPLEMENTATION REPORT.

       Within 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is 
     operating shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate a report on the implementation of the Integrated 
     Deepwater Program that includes--
       (1) a complete timeline for the acquisition of each new 
     Deepwater asset and the phase-out of legacy assets for the 
     life of such program;
       (2) a projection of the remaining operational lifespan of 
     each legacy asset;
       (3) a detailed justification for each modification in each 
     Integrated Deepwater Program asset that fulfills the revised 
     mission needs statement for the program; and
       (4) a total cost of the program that aligns with the 
     revised mission needs statement for the program.

     SEC. 410. HELICOPTERS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the department in which 
     the Coast Guard is operating may in accordance with this 
     section acquire or lease up to four previously used HH-65 
     helicopters or airframes (or any combination thereof) that 
     were not under the administrative control of the Coast Guard 
     on January 1, 2005.
       (b) Determination and Certification.--The Secretary shall 
     not acquire or lease any previously used HH-65 helicopters or 
     airframes under subsection (a), until the end of the 90-day 
     period beginning on the date the Secretary notifies the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate that the Secretary has--
       (1) determined that acquiring or leasing such previously 
     used helicopters or airframes, and making any modifications 
     to such helicopters or airframes that are needed to ensure 
     those helicopters and airframes meet the design, 
     construction, and equipment standards that apply to H-65 
     helicopters under the administrative control of the Coast 
     Guard on May 18, 2005, is more cost-effective than acquiring 
     or leasing an equal number of MH-68 helicopters; and
       (2) certified that the helicopters and airframes will meet 
     all applicable Coast Guard safety requirements.

     SEC. 411. REPORTS FROM MORTGAGEES OF VESSELS.

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

     SEC. 412. NEWTOWN CREEK, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK.

       (a) Study.--Of the amounts provided under section 1012 of 
     the Oil Pollution Act, the Coast Guard shall conduct a study 
     of public health and safety concerns related to the pollution 
     of Newtown Creek, New York City, New York, caused by seepage 
     of oil into Newtown Creek from 17,000,000 gallons of 
     underground oil spills in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, New York.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Coast Guard shall transmit to 
     Congress a report containing the results of the study.

            Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Young of Alaska:
       At the end of Title IV add the following:
       Sec.   . Section 8103(b) of title 46, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding the following paragraph at the end of 
     that subsection:
       ``(4) Paragraph (1) of this subsection and Section 8701 of 
     this title do not apply to individuals transported on 
     international voyages who are not part of the crew complement 
     required under Section 8101 or a member of the Stewards 
     department, and do not perform watchstanding functions. 
     However, such individuals must possess a transportation 
     security card issued under Section 70105 of this title, when 
     required.''

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, it is well established under 
current law that foreign workers may work on U.S. flag vessels on 
international voyages to conduct various non-watchstanding functions. 
These personnel are not considered seamen. This amendment will confirm 
the legality of this practice.
  Also, the amendment clarifies that personnel must possess a 
transportation security card, when required under the Maritime 
Transportation Security Act, and I urge Members to support this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Young of Alaska:
       Add at the end of title IV the following:

     SEC.  . ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN WESTERN ALASKA 
                   COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT QUOTA PROGRAM.

       (a) Treatment of Secretary Approval.--

[[Page 20432]]

       (1) In general.--Approval by the Secretary of Commerce of a 
     community development plan, or an amendment thereof, shall 
     not be considered a major Federal action for purposes of 
     section 102(2) of the Public Law 91-190 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)).
       (2) Definition.--(A) In this subsection, the term 
     ``community development plan'' means a plan, prepared by a 
     community development quota group for the western Alaska 
     community development quota program under section 305(i) of 
     the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 1855(i)), that describes how the group intends 
     to--
       (i) harvest its share of fishery resources allocated to the 
     program; and
       (ii) use the harvest opportunity, and any revenue derived 
     from such use, to assist communities that are members of the 
     group with projects to advance economic development.
       (B) In this subsection, no plan that allocates fishery 
     resources to the western Alaska community development quota 
     program under section 305(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
     Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(i)) is a 
     ``community development plan''.

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this amendment approves 
established National Marine Fisheries Service policy regarding the 
process for approving community development plans in small Alaska 
communities. The amendment does not in any way change the manner in 
which these fishery resources are distributed to, or the total amount 
of fish allocated to, eligible communities. This is a good amendment. 
It is asked for and the agency itself suggested that we do offer it, 
and I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Young of Alaska:
       Add at the end of title IV the following:

     SEC.   . QUOTA SHARE ALLOCATION.

       (a) In General.--The Voluntary Three-Pie Cooperative 
     Program for crab fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian 
     Islands implemented under section 801 of title VIII of 
     division B of Public Law 108-199 is amended to require that--
       (1) Blue Dutch, LLC, shall receive crab processing quota 
     shares equal to 1.5 percent of the total allowable catch for 
     each of the following fisheries: the Bristol Bay red king 
     crab fishery and the Bering Sea C. opilio crab fishery; and
       (2) the Program implementing regulations shall be adjusted 
     so that the total of all crab processing quota shares for 
     each fishery referred to in paragraph (1), including the 
     amount specified in paragraph (1), equals 90 percent of the 
     total allowable catch.
       (b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall apply, with 
     respect to each fishery referred to in subsection (a)(1), 
     whenever the total allowable catch for that fishery is more 
     than 2 percent higher than the total allowable catch for that 
     fishery during calendar year 2005.

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this amendment assures that if a 
new quota becomes available in certain Alaska fisheries, a portion of 
it will be distributed to a vessel which currently has no qualifying 
catch history. This amendment corrects an inequity without taking quota 
from existing vessels. If no new quota is made available through the 
normal management process, then the additional vessel does not receive 
any quota.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to take a moment to thank the gentleman 
from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), ranking member, and their staffs for working with me to 
include as part of the manager's amendment the text of the substance of 
House Resolution 372 which will transfer ownership of St. Marks 
Lighthouse from the Coast Guard to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
  This lighthouse, Mr. Chairman, was built in the 1820s and today still 
serves as an acting navigational aid for vessels on the Apalachee Bay. 
This old lighthouse has survived, Mr. Chairman, many wars and many 
storms, and we were going to lose the building itself if this transfer 
was not made.
  I want to thank again the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking member, for their 
help in accomplishing this.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOYD. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, for myself, and I know I speak for the 
gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), we are happy to accommodate the 
gentleman's concern.
  I am particularly an aficionado of lighthouses. I think they have 
played an extraordinary role in the navigation maritime history of 
America, but lighthouses also played an extraordinary and important 
role in the development of commercial navigation, air navigation in the 
United States.
  In the early days of aviation, the lighthouse service set up 
lighthouses on land with million-candle-powered lights with an arrow 
pointing to the next lighthouse where the nighttime flyer could chart 
his course and fly safely to a destination. Lighthouses really made 
maritime navigation safe, but they made aviation navigation safe as 
well. So preserving such a piece of history is really important, and I 
am really glad the gentleman has brought it to the attention of the 
committee.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for 
his comments. We are always blessed to have the benefit of someone who 
has as much knowledge as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) 
does.

                              {time}  1515

  This lighthouse that has been addressed in this manager's amendment 
is still serving as a navigational aid to air transportation and also 
to maritime navigation.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Souder

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

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Souder:
       At the end of title IV add the following new section:

     SEC. __. ACQUISITION OF MARITIME REFUELING SUPPORT VESSEL FOR 
                   UNITED STATES DRUG INTERDICTION EFFORTS IN THE 
                   EASTERN PACIFIC MARITIME TRANSIT ZONE.

       There are authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2006 and $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 for the 
     Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement 
     Affairs (INL) of the Department of State to purchase or lease 
     a maritime refueling support vessel that is capable of 
     refueling public vessels (as that term is defined in section 
     30101(3) of title 46, United States Code), and allied 
     warships and vessels employed in support of United States 
     drug interdiction duties in the Eastern Pacific maritime 
     transit zone.

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask my colleagues' support for 
this amendment which would authorize critical resources for our drug 
interdiction efforts which directly impact the U.S. Coast Guard.
  I first want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman 
LoBiondo) for his leadership and efforts in providing much-needed 
support to the Coast Guard.
  Recently, more than ever, the Coast Guard has demonstrated its unique 
multimission role as the world's premier maritime service. The recent 
devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina along our gulf coast has been 
well documented, and our sympathies are extended to those who have lost 
so much.
  However, out of the destruction and despair come many positive 
stories, and one of the best stories to emerge from this disaster has 
been the heroic work of our Coast Guard.
  Hurricane Katrina ravaged Coast Guard stations in Gulfport and 
Pascagoula, Mississippi; and looters wrecked part of its New Orleans 
base. But that did not stop the Coast Guard from sending out rescue 
helicopters, cutters, and small boats on dangerous and exhausting 
missions to save lives and clear waterways after the hurricane ravaged 
the gulf coast since August 29.
  To date, the Coast Guard has coordinated the search and rescue 
efforts

[[Page 20433]]

that resulted in over 33,000 lives saved and evacuated to date. Coast 
Guard helicopters and boat crews from around the country responded and 
have heroically risked their lives in some of the most challenging and 
dangerous circumstances of recent times.
  As a military, multimission maritime service, the Coast Guard 
performs a unique blend of humanitarian, law enforcement, regulatory, 
and military missions and responsibilities providing maritime security, 
maritime safety, protection of natural resources, and national defense 
services.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and 
Human Resources and a member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I 
am very aware of the critical role performed by the Coast Guard in drug 
interdiction and homeland security.
  In fiscal year 2004, the Coast Guard seized a record 240,519 pounds 
of cocaine worth approximately $7.3 billion. To date, in fiscal year 
2005, the Coast Guard has seized over 290,000 pounds of cocaine worth 
an estimated $8.8 billion.
  As Hurricane Katrina has made abundantly clear, our country needs a 
strong and robust Coast Guard, and Congress needs to ensure that we are 
putting the right tools and equipment in the very capable hands of 
Coast Guard men and women so that they may continue to deliver the 
robust maritime safety and security America expects and deserves.
  The Coast Guard's Deepwater recapitalization project plays an 
absolutely critical role in building a more ready and capable 21st 
century Coast Guard equal to the challenges we face today and 
anticipate tomorrow.
  It is vitally important to our national drug control strategy and our 
national security, as well as protecting our Nation's citizens from 
natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, that the Deepwater project 
be accelerated and that there be more Coast Guard ships and aircraft to 
respond to the many critical missions of the Coast Guard.
  I offer this amendment to improve upon these drug seizure totals by 
authorizing the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics 
and Law Enforcement Affairs to acquire a refueling vessel for the 
benefit of U.S. and allied drug interdiction agencies, such as the U.S. 
Coast Guard and the U.S. Navy, operating in the eastern Pacific region. 
According to testimony provided by the Coast Guard, the Department of 
Defense, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and other 
agencies, drug traffickers have increasingly pushed their routes into 
that area farther and farther west.
  We have three Coast Guard vehicles that operate there. One is usually 
trying to come in, one is going back, and only one is out in this huge 
zone running up with all of the cocaine and heroin coming in from 
Colombia because we do not have a refueling vessel there.
  U.S. vessels have no capability of refueling in that area and, thus, 
cannot operate for any significant length of time. The drug 
traffickers, by contrast, have developed their own sophisticated 
refueling system and can now simply bypass our interdiction forces. 
Today, we face an almost unique situation in drug interdiction history: 
we now have more intelligence about drug trafficking than we have 
assets to act on it, meaning we know it is coming, we know where it is, 
but we cannot get it; meaning that we have to watch helplessly while 
some shipments of poisonous narcotics are brought into the U.S.
  The Coast Guard's motto, ``Semper Paratus,'' meaning always ready, 
has been earned through the courage and actions of the members of the 
Coast Guard. I am happy to say that this amendment will help ensure 
that future Coast Guard members can live up to that motto.
  Again, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman LoBiondo) for 
his leadership in support of the Coast Guard, and I urge my colleagues 
to support this amendment.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, we are very happy to accept this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Markey

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

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Markey:
       In subtitle A of title IV, add at the end the following new 
     section:

     SEC. __. SECURITY AND SAFETY REVIEW OF LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS 
                   FACILITIES.

       (a) Security and Safety Review.--The Commandant of the 
     Coast Guard shall conduct a comprehensive security and safety 
     review of the proposed construction, expansion, or operation 
     of a waterfront facility for the transfer of liquefied 
     natural gas from ships to land or from land to ships, 
     including proposed shipping routes to or from the facility.
       (b) Preparation of Report.--Upon completion of a review 
     under subsection (a), the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall 
     prepare a report setting forth the results of the review and 
     including any recommendations for measures that the 
     Commandant believes are necessary to ensure the public safety 
     and security of the proposed facility and the transportation 
     routes to and from the facility, or to mitigate any potential 
     adverse consequences.
       (c) Results of Review.--The Commandant of the Coast Guard 
     shall provide to each Federal agency responsible for 
     licensing, approval, or other authorization for the relevant 
     construction, expansion, or operation, and to Congress, a 
     report prepared under subsection (c), and shall also provide 
     the information in such report, to the extent consistent with 
     the protection of public safety and security, to affected 
     State and local officials and the public.
       (d) Reports to Congress.--
       (1) Summary of actions taken.--Not later than 6 months 
     after a report is provided under subsection (d), the 
     Commandant shall transmit a report to Congress summarizing 
     any action taken by the facility owner or by any appropriate 
     Federal or State agency in response to the Commandant's 
     recommendations contained in such report. If no action has 
     been taken to implement such a recommendation, the Commandant 
     shall report on the reasons why no action has been taken, and 
     shall include views on the failure to take the recommended 
     actions.
       (2) Implementation status report.--The Commandant shall 
     transmit an additional implementation status report to 
     Congress every 6 months until all of the recommendations 
     contained in the Commandant's report prepared under 
     subsection (c) have been implemented, or the Commandant 
     concludes that implementation is no longer necessary and 
     provides an explanation of the reasons for this 
     determination.
       (e) Requirement for Approval of Construction or Expansion 
     of Urban Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities.--
       (1) Requirement.--No person may construct or expand any 
     urban waterfront facility for the transfer of liquefied 
     natural gas from ships to land or from land to ships unless 
     the Commandant of the Coast Guard has approved such 
     construction or expansion. The Commandant shall not approve 
     any such construction or expansion if, as a result of the 
     review conducted pursuant to subsection (a), the Commandant 
     determines that the proposed facility, or the expansion of 
     the existing facility, would pose a substantial risk to 
     public safety and security in light of the potential loss of 
     life and damage to property that could result.
       (2) Civil penalty.--Any person who violates paragraph (1) 
     shall be liable for a civil penalty in an amount not to 
     exceed $1,000,000 for each day of such violation.
       (3) Savings clause.--Except as provided in paragraph (1), 
     approval under this subsection shall not affect any other 
     requirement under law to obtain a license, approval, or other 
     authorization for the construction, expansion, or operation 
     of an offshore or waterfront facility for the transfer of 
     liquefied natural gas from ships to land or from land to 
     ships.

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment which deals with a huge 
issue which is going to unfold in our country over the next decade, and 
that is the indisputable need for our country to have a large 
importation of liquefied natural gas into our country. In New England, 
already 20 percent of our natural gas is in the form of liquefied 
natural gas. It comes from overseas. This is a good thing, and it is 
something that has to expand, not only in New England but all across 
our country.
  The good news is that in the year 2001, there were only two LNG 
facilities licensed in the United States, one of them in Everett, 
Massachusetts, in

[[Page 20434]]

the middle of my congressional district. This is something, however, 
which is a legacy from a period that existed before 9/11. There are now 
30 proposed additional LNG facilities in the United States, and nine of 
them have already been licensed.
  The question going forward now is not do we need more LNG; the 
question is how will we have the importation of LNG be done consistent 
with homeland security principles. And here is the issue: in Boston, 
right here, coming in a couple of times a month, at least, comes this 
huge tanker right through the middle of Boston. That is East Boston 
High School right above it. Outside of Manhattan, this is the most 
densely populated part of the United States.
  Now, we cannot do anything about this facility. It is there. Maybe 
over time we can phase it out, but it is going to be there. The issue 
is, going forward, what will be the role of the Coast Guard, the Coast 
Guard which, in this picture, is escorting this LNG tanker right into 
Boston Harbor, which has to shut down every time one of these tankers 
comes in? What should the role of the Coast Guard be?
  What my amendment says is this: since we are going to have this large 
importation of LNG in terminals all across our country in the next 
generation, let us: One, require the Coast Guard to prepare a report on 
any measures needed to ensure public safety and security of the 
proposed facility and transportation routes to and from the facility; 
and, two, require the Coast Guard to report on any action taken by the 
facility owner or by appropriate Federal and State regulators in 
response to any findings or recommendations made by the Coast Guard 
with respect to the proposed facility, including what measures have 
been put in place to mitigate potential risks; and, third, require the 
Coast Guard to approve any construction or expansion of an LNG facility 
before it can go forward, and direct the Coast Guard to not approve any 
such construction or expansion if it determines that the proposed 
facility or the expansion of the existing facility would pose a 
substantial risk to public safety and security in light of the 
potential loss of life and damage to property that could result.
  We know that if that tank was exploded, if the tanks that are on the 
land where the tanker is going to unload the LNG, that the event would 
be catastrophic in the middle of the city of Boston; but the same would 
be true across the whole country. The Sandia Laboratories, in studying 
an incident that could occur with a tanker such as this, sees a radius 
of upwards of 2,000 feet that would have levels of heat and fire that 
would burn buildings, damage steel tanks and machinery; and one can 
imagine what would happen to every human being inside that radius.
  So, for me, to leave it to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
to have exclusive jurisdiction over where one of these facilities is 
sited, without taking into account what the Coast Guard will have to do 
as a part of the Department of Homeland Security in safeguarding that 
shipment, is, in a post-9/11 period, reckless. In a post-New Orleans 
period, it is reckless.
  We must give the people who live in these densely populated areas the 
benefit of the doubt that the Coast Guard would raise the questions 
about homeland security, about what would happen if there were a 
terrorist attack, and then suggest perhaps that the facility be built 
offshore, and that there be a pipeline brought in, that the facility be 
built in a more remote area of the State and a pipeline be built to 
bring it down; but it should be the Coast Guard, the agency of 
expertise.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote to protect public safety in all communities 
where LNGs will be imported in the generation ahead.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would significantly add to the Coast 
Guard's mission responsibilities by requiring the service to regulate 
the construction and expansion of liquefied natural gas facilities. 
Coast Guardsmen and -women do not have the expertise and background to 
inspect building plans as they would be required to do under this 
amendment.
  In addition, this amendment would in many ways duplicate the efforts 
already undertaken by the States and the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission to regulate these facilities. With the current situation, I 
question the addition of significant shore-side responsibilities to the 
Coast Guard's wide scope of missions. We have heard about what they 
have been expected to do, we have heard their missions have been 
expanded by some 27 items, that their personnel is not there, that 
their funding is not there; and I reiterate that they do not have the 
expertise and background to inspect these building plans and do the job 
that is required under this amendment.
  I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of this 
amendment, and I would like to commend my colleague, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the dean of our delegation, for his 
leadership on this issue. Years ago the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey) played a critical role in the passage of the Pipeline 
Safety Act, which stressed the need for the remote siting of LNG 
terminals; and since then he has continued to be a national leader and 
advocate for the needs and safety of our communities.
  This is a commonsense amendment that we have before us today. I can 
tell my colleagues firsthand that the current system does not work. In 
my district there has been a proposal to construct an LNG storage tank 
in the middle of Fall River. The site itself would be just 1,200 feet 
from homes with over 9,000 people living within a 1-mile radius of the 
tank. Immediately, community and State officials sounded off the alarm. 
They pointed to environmental concerns, and there are a lot of 
environmental concerns with the siting in this area, which FERC just 
dismissed without ever conferring with the EPA.
  They also pointed out the fact that if this facility would be 
constructed, the tankers would have to go under three different bridges 
in the river, and all three bridges would have to be shut down for a 
period of time for safety concerns. And the problem with that is that 
neighboring communities would then be denied access to hospitals that 
are located in Fall River and other emergency facilities. Again, FERC 
totally ignored that.
  The community raised security concerns which were supported by a 
report prepared by counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke talking about 
the potential threat to the community in the case of a terrorist attack 
or an accident. Yet the Department of Homeland Security was never 
included in the review process. In fact, despite repeated requests from 
members of the Massachusetts and Rhode Island delegations, officials 
from Homeland Security have yet to comment on the site, let alone visit 
the site.

                              {time}  1530

  Instead, they referred our request to the Coast Guard, which is only 
required to present its recommendation prior to the actual construction 
of the LNG tanks. So in the end, without any coordination with the 
necessary Federal agencies, FERC approved the construction of the LNG 
storage tank in Fall River, Massachusetts.
  Now it was only after the Navy intervened, pointing to additional 
threats to national security, that FERC finally took a step back and 
are now deciding whether to consider an appeal by the State of 
Massachusetts.
  This one case in Fall River illustrates a larger problem. Our current 
system fails to ensure a thorough review of all of the issues 
surrounding LNG sites; and the Markey amendment, by bringing the Coast 
Guard to the table before new LNG sites are approved, I think is a 
necessary step in that direction.
  As our Nation's energy demands continue to grow, we must work to 
ensure that adequate energy sources are available; and I would be the 
last person to argue otherwise. We do need additional LNG facilities in 
this country. But we must be mindful that our public health, security 
and safety are not disregarded in the process.
  I have never had a more maddening experience in my life than dealing 
with

[[Page 20435]]

FERC. They did not consider, let alone discuss, any of the issues that 
were raised by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, by our governor or by 
local officials or by local public safety officials. They went ahead 
and approved this and justified the approval without considering any of 
the evidence that was brought before them, evidence, quite frankly, 
that points to major security concerns.
  I think that what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has 
done here is proposed an amendment that, you know, should not be 
controversial. I think all of us here should want to make sure that 
these facilities are sited in the safest possible areas.
  I have a prediction. That is, in the not-too-distant future, some 
homeland security chief is going to weigh in on this and recommend that 
LNG facilities not be sited in heavily populated areas and that, 
instead, they be sited in areas that are not in the middle of a growing 
urban area or offshore them because of the safety concerns.
  So this amendment should be approved. I would hope that my colleagues 
would join with me in supporting the Markey amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Under the agreement that we have in committee, we do not support 
amendments that one or the other side disagrees with; and I support the 
committee position. I do want to observe, however, that this amendment 
is relatively benign. Had it been drafted differently, I think it 
easily could have been accepted.
  The Coast Guard does have largely this authority. And while the 
chairman of the subcommittee has expressed a concern about the Coast 
Guard being drawn afield from its normal mission in looking into on-
land facilities, actually if the Coast Guard felt there were a problem 
with their existing authority they could do what the gentleman's 
amendment proposes to direct them to do, they could say, look, we think 
this is a security problem or a safety problem and inspect it. And, in 
fact, any contractor with an ounce of sense would invite the Coast 
Guard in and say look at it before we go ahead.
  I do want to observe, however, there is new technology that may make 
such facilities unnecessary in the short term and long term.
  During this storm of Katrina in the gulf, an LNG facility offloaded 3 
billion cubic feet of natural gas 100 miles offshore because the tanker 
had on board the new regassification technology that allows it to make 
the conversion necessary to discharge from the ship; and with 8-foot 
seas, they were able to discharge 3 billion cubic feet of natural gas. 
With the rate at which natural gas prices are rising, I think we need 
more of that capability.
  I certainly sympathize with my colleagues in Massachusetts along Fall 
River who do not want to see one of these LNG ports in their river, 
close to human population, with all of the potential, but this is not 
the appropriate place to make that fix.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief.
  The issue is we have fought this amendment before. There is a 
critical demand for natural gas in this country. The Coast Guard, as 
has already been stated, is already involved in this process. They 
establish access control measures. They establish security measures for 
cargo handling and delivery. They provide surveillance and monitoring. 
They ensure security communications. They create security incident 
procedures. They coordinate with local, State and Federal authorities 
to respond to security incidents, personnel training and drill 
requirements and identify a facility security officer who is 
responsible for ensuring compliance with the facility security plan. So 
the Coast Guard is already doing a lot of these intercoastal 
activities.
  In addition to the U.S. Coast Guard, the LNG terminal safety and 
security are subjected to additional layers of Federal oversight. FERC 
and the Department of Transportation are responsible for exercising 
regulatory authority over LNG facilities.
  This country can no longer continue down the route of saying we want 
to use energy, but we do not want any energy brought into this country. 
We just cannot. It kills our manufacturing base. We are no longer 
competitive.
  Now we are paying $10 per million Btus for natural gas use, when our 
opponents, our competitors worldwide like Russia pay 95 cents. How can 
we compete? We have to have energy.
  If we cannot drill in our own country, if we cannot explore, if you 
are going to put the whole Continental United States off limits, we 
have to import liquefied natural gas. We can do it. We have done it 
safely. We can do it economically.
  The Coast Guard is involved. And to say that this is not an attempt 
to stop LNG facilities on the United States is just a false premise. I 
reject it.
  Now we have had this amendment numerous times and tried to stop the 
development of LNG facilities during the energy bill. We have defeated 
it every time, and we are going to defeat it now.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Markey amendment. As the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) just mentioned, we have been 
through several attempts in the energy bill to recognize the NIMBY, not 
in my back yard movement, against LNG. You cannot have it both ways.
  This House spoke overwhelmingly to say that we need and will support 
more natural gas supply within the United States by beating or not 
adopting the Markey amendments in the energy bill, which I think is the 
proper place to discuss the topic of liquefied natural gas and its 
safety.
  And, by the way, what we adopted in that energy bill is a streamlined 
process that does give FERC the ultimate authority on permitting and 
siting but also in that bill mandates to FERC that they have to take 
into account the safety concerns. It is stated right there in black and 
white. They have to adopt or they have to take into account the safety 
concerns, the procedural concerns from both the local, the county, the 
State governments and all of the Federal agencies, including the Coast 
Guard, that are involved in this process.
  As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) mentioned, the Coast 
Guard is already part of the process. It has jurisdiction over part of 
the safety plan that makes sure that the ships are safely brought in to 
the port facility. It escorts those ships, in fact. You know, I just 
have got to say that we have got to get away from this NIMBY mentality 
here.
  Right now, we are paying $10 per Btu for natural gas. Mexico is a 
fraction of it. We look at what we use natural gas for in the United 
States, it is not just heating our homes. Eighty percent of the homes 
in Nebraska are heated with natural gas. I would presume that the 
majority of homes along the East Coast are heated with natural gas.
  Go tell your folks that you are in favor of their natural gas heating 
bill going up by 30 or 40 percent this December, January and February. 
Because that is what we are looking at.
  But, also, it is a major element in cost in manufacturing, 
manufacturing chemicals, manufacturing fertilizer; and I am telling you 
our farmers in Nebraska cannot withstand the price increases that they 
are going to have to incur with fertilizer. Chemical plants are pulling 
out of the United States to avoid the high cost of natural gas.
  We need this product in the United States. Let us keep it as this 
body has already decided with the streamlined approach that already 
incorporates all of the safety concerns from all of the local and State 
and Federal agencies.
  Let us join the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
LoBiondo), and all of the others that are in opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

[[Page 20436]]


  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me clear up some 
misinformation which has been disseminated out here on the House floor. 
We have, in fact, not debated this issue ever before in the House.
  What happened in the energy bill was that the Republican majority 
made a determination that they were going to remove governors and 
mayors from the decision-making process as to where an LNG facility can 
be sited. Until August of 2005, mayors and governors had a say. Now 
they do not because of the energy bill.
  Now we all know that when and if a catastrophic event occurs, people 
in our country have learned not to depend upon the Federal Government. 
They know that the first call has to go to the local fire, the local 
police. That is who they are going to call, and they have good reason 
to after what happened in New Orleans. I do not think any city or town 
is going to repeat the mistake which New Orleans made in waiting for 
Department of Homeland Security to respond.
  But let us just say for the sake of discussion that we are going to 
remove the mayor and we are going to remove the governor from any say 
on where an LNG facility can go in the most densely urban populated 
parts of this State. What my amendment says is, at least allow the 
Federal Government to have a role. At least allow the Department of 
Homeland Security to have a role. But the Republican majority says, no, 
we are only going to allow the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
which has no jurisdiction over homeland security, no responsibility to 
look at the public safety issues, they alone will look at these issues.
  Well, you know, the recriminations which have taken place in the last 
2 weeks all turn on one question. Why didn't people listen to the Corps 
of Engineers? Why didn't we give more protection to those people in 
that community? But we all know that the Corps of Engineers was 
ignored, that their warnings were ignored.
  What the majority Republican party wants to do is to tell the Coast 
Guard, we do not want to have your view on where an LNG facility should 
be sited if you are going to tell us you disagree with the energy 
decision.
  It should be all energy. No homeland security at all. No protection 
for the people who will be living in the mile or two around that 
facility. Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is what this debate is all 
about.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Terry) and, by the way, each of them could not try harder 
to get more geographically far away in Nebraska and Illinois from the 
coastline, our experts today. Mark Twain used to say, an expert is 
anyone who lives more than 1,000 miles away from a problem, and we have 
got two experts here today telling us on the coastline what we need.
  Well, what we need, ladies and gentlemen, is the Coast Guard to make 
a determination as to whether or not they can protect against a 
catastrophic event, and what they are saying is no Coast Guard, no 
governor, no mayor, nobody but the energy companies. That is what it is 
all about. It is about the energy companies.
  Yes, we need a doubling, yes, we need a tripling, a quadrupling of 
LNG in our country.

                              {time}  1545

  I have the number one facility in America in my district. We need it 
in New England more than anyone else. But as a homeland security issue, 
it should have the Coast Guard making a determination as to whether or 
not it can be protected against a terrorist attack. And if an 
alternative is possible offshore or in a more remote area of that 
State, then they should be given the right to participate in that 
decision.
  If you just leave it to the energy companies, which is what the 
Republicans want to do, this is just a continuation of their energy 
bill, letting the consumers get tipped upside down because the energy 
companies do not want to spend a few extra bucks to add into homeland 
security, the same way as the catastrophic events of New Orleans were 
just over saving a few bucks.
  Well, this is your chance to do something about LNG facilities in 
densely populated areas, to give a say to the Coast Guard, rule out 
your Governor, rule out your mayor, but at least the Coast Guard, at 
least a part of the Federal Government should be part of this. If you 
want a Federal solution to the energy problem, you also have to have a 
Federal component to homeland security in 2005.
  Al Qaeda is not taking a break. Al Qaeda is out there. Al Qaeda used 
the Boston LNG terminal as the route to bring in their Al Qaeda agents.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Markey was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. MARKEY. Richard Clarke in his book said on September 11, 2001 
when he was asked to take over in charge of all homeland security 
response, his first thought was shut down the port of Boston, call the 
Coast Guard commandant there. That is where Abdul Meskini and the other 
al Qaeda agents had come in on the LNG tanker from Algeria into Boston 
Harbor. That is how they got here. Abdul Meskini is in prison right now 
for the LAX millennium bombing plot.
  So let us not kid ourselves. They are coming for urban areas. They 
are coming for the high-impact areas. They are coming for LNG 
facilities. They are coming for nuclear facilities. They want to use 
airplanes. They want the biggest event possible. They want London. They 
want Madrid. They want New York. They want L.A.
  They want the big urban populated areas. Let us not kid ourselves. 
Vote ``aye'' on the Markey amendment. Give the Coast Guard the homeland 
security ability to be able to make a decision to protect the citizens 
of our country.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by my esteemed colleague, Congressman Markey. His amendment seeks to 
protect the citizens of our cities and towns from the potential threat 
posed by liquefied natural gas, LNG, tankers traversing our waterways.
  I fully grasp the need to import additional quantities of fuel, 
particularly natural gas. Our energy supplies are dwindling and have 
been further hampered by the recent events in the Gulf. However, I must 
question the haste of our efforts to import LNG without the proper 
planning to ensure the public's safety. As it stands now, the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, has the preeminent authority in 
siting these LNG facilities. The recently passed Energy Bill even 
included a provision that usurped State's rights in the siting process. 
The problem here is that FERC is an agency concerned with energy 
policy, yet they have limited expertise in security and public safety. 
In the past, we could rely on individual States to make security 
decisions, but now that authority is in jeopardy.
  The most prudent action we can take at this time to ensure the safety 
and security of our citizens is to bolster the power of the Coast 
Guard. While the Coast Guard is already involved in siting LNG 
facilities, this amendment offered by Congressman Markey would give the 
Coast Guard the specific direction they need to properly and thoroughly 
examine risks posed to the public.
  There is no doubt that LNG will become an increasing part of our 
Nation's energy supply. Moreover, there will be some prospective sites 
that are suitable for LNG facilities and others that are not. I am not 
here to make a judgment on any specific sites. Rather, I want the 
professionals in the Coast Guard to do the security analysis. Our 
energy needs cannot take precedent over the safety of our citizens. 
Once again, I support Mr. Markey's amendment and I urge my colleagues 
to include it in the final bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) 
requiring the U.S. Coast Guard to conduct a comprehensive risk 
assessment of waterfront facilities transferring liquefied gas, LNG, 
and proposed shipping routes for LNG tankers. I appreciate Mr. Markey's 
leadership and advocacy for the safety and welfare of Americans 
potentially affected by ``siting'' or expanding floating and shore-
based LNG terminals.
  Importantly, the Markey amendment does not refute the need for more 
LNG terminals or a greater supply of natural gas. Rather, the amendment 
simply requires an assessment of

[[Page 20437]]

whether terminals are safely located and sufficiently remote from city 
centers and highly populated areas. It also directs terminal owners and 
operators how to best mitigate risks.
  The Coast Guard is a firm pillar of our homeland security and 
national security defenses. It is therefore uniquely prepared to assess 
the risk of siting LNG terminals upon our Nation's waterways and 
shorelines. Well-versed in the safety and security needs of our local 
ports and harbors, we must build upon the Coast Guard's success as the 
trusted steward of our shores.
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, the Markey amendment gives the Coast Guard 
the right to challenge the safety of an LNG proposal during the siting 
or expansion process. To that end, I strongly encourage my colleagues 
to vote for the Markey amendment in order to give the Coast Guard the 
last word in terminal siting and thereby maximize Federal preparedness 
against possible accidents or terrorist attacks upon LNG terminals.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Fossella

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

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Fossella:
       At the end of title IV add the following:

     SEC.   . VOYAGE DATA RECORDER REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Authority to Prescribe Regulations.--Chapter 35 of 
     title 46, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

      Sec. 3507. Voyage data recorders

       (a) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations that require 
     that a passenger vessel described in section 2l0l(22)(D) 
     carrying more than 399 passengers shall be equipped with a 
     voyage data recorder approved in accordance with the 
     regulations.
       ``(b) Regulations prescribed under subsection (a) shall 
     establish--
       ``(1) standards for voyage data recorders required under 
     the regulations;
       ``(2) methods for approval of models of voyage data 
     recorders under the regulations; and
       ``(3) procedures for annual performance testing of voyage 
     data recorders required under the regulations.
       ``(c) To implement this section and regulations prescribed 
     under this section there is authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary $1,500,000 each fiscal year.''.
       (b) Deadline for Regulations.--The Secretary (as that term 
     is used in chapter 35 of title 46, United States Code) shall 
     initiate the prescribing of regulations under section 3507(a) 
     of title 46, United States Code, as amended by this section, 
     by not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 35 of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``3507. Voyage data recorders.''.

  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairmen of the subcommittee 
and the full committee for their efforts here.
  First at the outset, let me commend the great men and women of the 
United States Coast Guard for what they do. In Staten Island and 
Brooklyn, we are privileged that they are watching the Port of New York 
and the hundreds, if not thousands, of personnel who dedicate their 
lives to helping us and saving many and protecting us. And after a very 
aggressive summer boating season, many of them have been redeployed to 
the gulf region and serving once again with honor and distinction and 
rescuing many and really serving full support to the United States 
Coast Guard.
  The amendment I have offered today deals with what happened several 
years ago in Staten Island. On October 15, 2003, the Staten Island 
Ferry boat, the Andrew J. Barberi, was on a regularly scheduled trip 
from Manhattan to Staten Island, as it does 365 days a year; but on 
that day, it collided with the maintenance pier at the Staten Island 
Ferry Terminal. The tragic accident resulted in the death of 11 people, 
11 innocent people with over 70 injured, many severely.
  Despite the exceptional report issued by the National Transportation 
Safety Board, which conducted a very thorough investigation, we still 
do not know the full story of what happened on that tragic day. The 
N.T.S.B. concluded a probable cause of the incident was ``the assistant 
captain's unexplained incapacitation.''
  The unwillingness of those with knowledge of what happened in the 
wheelhouse to talk unfortunately ensures that the full story of that 
tragedy will never be known.
  In light of these circumstances, the amendment I have offered today 
requires that voyage data recorders, or VDRs, not too unlike the 
famous, or infamous, black boxes that exist in every airplane cockpit, 
be installed in ferries carrying more than 399 passengers.
  For a point of fact, that is probably more than 50 ferry boats 
nationwide. The devices are similar to the black boxes. In addition to 
recording all communication and navigation data in a ship's wheelhouse, 
the devices can also be used to track vessels en route and determine 
whether or not a ship is veering off course, which would have arguably 
prevented this tragic accident as well.
  In addition to helping determine whether or not ships may be on a 
dangerous course, the devices also provide critical information in the 
event of future accidents that will give investigators a more complete 
understanding of events and in helping investigators understand root 
causes, such as greatly assist them in offering recommendations for 
safety improvements.
  The amendment sets forth very practically to allow these VDRs in 
passenger ferries of 399 or more passengers. The Staten Island Ferry in 
and of itself carries tens of thousands people every day.
  I think it is a commonsense measure. Furthermore, I want to commend 
the chairmen of both the full and the subcommittee for agreeing to 
continue to dialogue, to figure out ways we can prevent such accidents 
from occurring.
  One of the other issues that clearly happened here was the pilot in 
control basically provided fraudulent physi-
cals. And we need to find a way that we can effectively protect the 
public from those pilots, and I would argue physicians that provided 
false medicals to allow people who really do not belong in a wheelhouse 
to be responsible for the lives of tens of thousands of people on a 
daily basis.
  I urge support of this commonsense amendment.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the majority is going to accept the 
amendment. We have previously agreed on the outcome.
  Voyage data recorders are as important as they are in aviation. The 
flight data recorder, the voice data recorder in the cockpit helps us 
to understand outcomes of accidents or causes of accidents in 
investigating the tragedies in aviation.
  The Coast Guard is working with the IMO to amend the Safety of Life 
At Sea Convention to require voyage data recorders for ships in the 
international service. But doing so for newly built ships, those that 
are under construction is one thing. The cost can be absorbed in the 
construction of the vessels. But older vessels that do not have 
automated engine rooms, do not have automated sensors are going to 
result in a huge cost, as much as $300,000 I have heard from vessel 
owners to retro-fit vessels.
  So in accepting the gentleman's amendment, we must also have language 
when we get through conference, in the conference report, about somehow 
alleviating the cost on older vessels just as we do in aviation. There 
are ways of phasing in newer technology in aviation, the flight data 
recorder that records up to 150 parameters of operations of an 
aircraft, for example. We give airlines time and manufacturers time to 
incorporated the new technology into newer general aircraft.

[[Page 20438]]

  I just raise this as a caution because I know the chairman has great 
concern for the financial effects on maritime navigation of actions we 
take in committee.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).
  The amendment was agreed to.


      Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California

  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of 
     California:
       Page 25, line 15, strike ``REPORT'' and insert ``REPORTS''.
       Page 25, line 16, strike ``In General.--'' and insert 
     ``Adequacy of Assets.--''.
       Page 26, after line 14, insert the following:
       (c) Adequacy of Active Duty Strength.--The Commandant of 
     the Coast Guard shall review the adequacy of the strength of 
     active duty personnel authorized under section 102(a) to 
     carry out the Coast Guard's non-homeland security missions 
     and homeland security missions, as those terms are defined in 
     section 888 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
     468). Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the Commandant shall submit a report to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the 
     Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate that includes the findings of 
     that review and any recommendations to enhance mission 
     capabilities of the Coast Guard.


   Modification to Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of 
                               California

  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to modify this amendment with the modification placed at the 
desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to Amendment No. 2 offered by Ms. Loretta 
     Sanchez of California:
       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted at page 26, 
     line 14, insert the following:
       (c) Adequacy of Active Duty Strength.--The Commandant of 
     the Coast Guard shall review the adequacy of the strength of 
     active duty personnel authorized under section 102(a) to 
     carry out the Coast Guard's missions, including search and 
     rescue, illegal drug and migrant interdiction, aids to 
     navigation, ports, waterways and coastal security, marine 
     environmental protection, and fisheries law enforcement. Not 
     later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Commandant shall submit a report to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on 
     Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate that includes the findings of that review.

  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, 
I ask unanimous consent that the modification be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would 
have the commandant of the Coast Guard review and report on whether the 
currently authorized level of active duty personnel is adequate for 
carrying out all the Coast Guard's missions, including its newly 
expanded homeland security missions.
  In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, we have seen how much our country 
relies on our Coast Guard. Currently, there are 2,400 Coast Guard 
members on the ground working on rescue and recovery efforts in the 
gulf coast, and to date they have saved over 33,000 lives.
  The Coast Guard's contribution to disaster response is extremely 
valuable, and it is only one part of what the Coast Guard's broad 
mission is, which includes port, waterways and coastal security, 
recreational boater safety, search and rescue, illegal drug and migrant 
interdiction, aids to navigation, and the protection of our natural 
resources.
  In the last couple of years, the Coast Guard security mission has 
grown exponentially as they work to secure our Nation's ports, our 
ships, and the cargo. But despite these growing responsibilities, the 
Coast Guard's authorized active duty personnel level is the same as it 
was in the early 1990s.
  In the ``Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General Fiscal 
Year 2003 Report'' on the mission performance of the Coast Guard, the 
demand for experienced and trained Coast Guard personnel was cited as 
one of the major barriers to improving and sustaining mission 
performance. So we must ensure that the Coast Guard has the personnel 
resources to achieve their broad and their very complex security 
missions while maintaining high performance on all of their other 
missions.
  I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member and their staff 
for working with me on this issue, and I ask for my colleagues' support 
of this amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the intent and purpose of 
the gentlewoman's amendment and her deep conviction in offering it, her 
concern that the Coast Guard undertake these evaluations and which the 
Coast Guard does as a matter of routine. But I think this will put a 
spotlight on this function of the Coast Guard and give a new urgency, 
especially in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, in these new homeland 
security responsibilities to which the gentlewoman has referred, to do 
a more thorough and current evaluation of the Coast Guard active duty 
personnel strengths and impacts on their homeland security missions, as 
well as the traditional historic function of the Coast Guard.
  I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
support of my good friend from Minnesota.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, as modified, we are prepared to accept 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered 
by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Inslee

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

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Inslee:
       At the end of title IV add the following:

     SEC. __. REIMBURSEMENT OF ADDITIONAL COSTS OF ELEVATED THREAT 
                   LEVELS.

       (a) Requirement.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     reimburse port authorities, facility operators, and State and 
     local agencies, that are required under Federal law to 
     provide security services or funds to implement Area Maritime 
     Transportation Security Plans and facility security plans 
     under chapter 701 of title 46, United States Code, for 50 
     percent of eligible costs incurred by such persons in 
     implementing protective measures and countermeasures in 
     response to any public advisory or alert regarding a threat 
     to homeland security that is issued under the United States 
     Coast Guard Maritime Security (MARSEC) system or any 
     successor to such system, and that is above the baseline 
     threat level under that system.
       (b) Eligible Costs.--For purposes of subsection (a), 
     eligible costs consist of any of the following:
       (1) Salary, benefits, overtime compensation, retirement 
     contributions, and other costs of additional Coast Guard-
     mandated security personnel.
       (2) The cost of acquisition, operation, and maintenance of 
     security equipment or facilities to be used for security 
     monitoring and recording, security gates and fencing, marine 
     barriers for designated security zones, security-related 
     lighting systems, remote surveillance, concealed video 
     systems, security vessels, and other security-related 
     infrastructure or equipment that contributes to the overall 
     security of passengers, cargo, or crewmembers.
       (3) The cost of screening equipment, including equipment 
     that detects weapons of mass destruction and conventional 
     explosives, and of testing and evaluating such equipment, to 
     certify secure systems of transportation.
       (c) Subject to Appropriations.--The requirement to provide 
     reimbursement under

[[Page 20439]]

     this section is subject to the availability of 
     appropriations.

  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Chair's assistance on 
this.
  We are offering this amendment in an attempt to address an inequity 
in the committee's clear desire, it is the committee's clear desire to 
have operation and maintenance costs available as outlined in the 
Maritime Transportation Security Act for coverage under this grant 
program.

                              {time}  1600

  After talking with the Congressional Research Service and with the 
Department of Homeland Security, it is clear that, at a practical 
level, on the ground at our ports, these costs, including overtime 
compensation for State patrol officers, are not being covered, despite 
the committee's best efforts.
  The Department of Homeland Security, however, responds to legislation 
passed by the Committee on Appropriations and takes a narrow view that 
operations and maintenance costs are not eligible to be covered.
  I believe that the chairman is of a like mind and believes that 
operations and maintenance costs during times of increased alert, 
expenses like extra operators for screening equipment, overtime for 
security officers, and additional K-9 bomb units, should be eligible 
for reimbursement by the Federal Government. I am asking for the 
chairman's help in addressing these issues.
  These Federal security mandates place an undue burden on our ports, 
which are part of the lifeblood of our economy. We need to help them.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman withdrawing his 
amendment and asking for a colloquy?
  Mr. INSLEE. Yes.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman makes that request, 
will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is proposing a very 
thoughtful amendment and making a very reasonable request, that the 
Secretary reimburse local port authorities, facility operators, State 
and local agencies when the security threat goes above green, if it 
goes to yellow, orange or red, and there are additional costs 
shouldered by local governments, that the Federal Government should 
pick up 50 percent of that cost. Is that the thrust of the amendment?
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, that is the thrust of the amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. If the gentleman will further yield, that is generally 
what our concern is, that they should not shoulder all these additional 
costs. I think there should be some way that we can reach accommodation 
when we go to conference with the other body on accommodating the 
gentleman's concern.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, as hard as it is for me, I am 
going to support the gentleman's amendment, but my concern when I look 
at it is we have got to make sure that this does not come out of the 
Coast Guard's budget. It either comes out of Homeland Security or some 
other arena, and that is what we can work out in this bill when we put 
it in. Because I do not want the Coast Guard's budget to take money and 
go into it when they raise that alert state.
  So I think the gentleman has got a good idea, and I am more than 
willing to work with him and see if we can solve it. I agree with the 
gentleman. Because when they put us on a higher alert, even though it 
might not even be in the arena of a port, it is a national higher 
alert, and it is a huge cost, and they have to carry that burden.
  As long as we get the money from some other source than the Coast 
Guard, I am highly in support of it.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the gentleman from Alaska's 
(Mr. Young) comment.
  I would yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) if he 
wanted to make a further comment, but the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young) seems to have covered the map.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will further yield, 
still with the understanding that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Inslee) is going to withdraw the amendment, I commend the gentleman 
from Washington for his strong concern about the increased costs to 
local ports involved in complying with the Maritime Transportation 
Safety Act.
  These same concerns were on the minds of the members of the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure when we first passed the Act in 
2002. We had extensive discussions about it, and at that time we 
authorized a port security grant in the Act.
  Unfortunately, as the gentleman has pointed out, it seems that the 
Department is not following the intent of the law, and that is a 
problem, and that is a mistake we would like to correct.
  We pledge, myself and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), to work 
with the gentleman and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) to continue as we move along 
with this bill to ensure that the port security grant program follows 
the criteria that we set out in the Maritime Transportation Safety Act. 
We will be very pleased to work with the gentleman on that.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the gentleman from Washington's 
unanimous consent request to withdraw the amendment?
  There was no objection.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Markey

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

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Markey:
       Add at the end the following new title:

TITLE __.--REQUIREMENTS FOR MARITIME TRANSPORTATION SECURITY PLANS AND 
                              ASSESSMENTS

     SEC. _01. REQUIREMENTS FOR AREA MARITIME TRANSPORTATION 
                   PLANS.

       Section 70103(b)(2) of title 46,United States Code, is 
     amended by redesignating subparagraphs (C) through (F) as 
     subparagraphs (E) through (H), respectively, and by inserting 
     after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) include a list of each facility located in the area 
     covered by the plan that could reduce the health, 
     environmental, or economic consequences associated with a 
     transportation security incident through the substitution of 
     chemicals or processes currently used in the facility with 
     alternative chemicals or processes that would not 
     significantly impair the ability of the facility to conduct 
     its business;
       ``(D) for areas that include or are near a large 
     population, or that are of special economic, environmental, 
     or national security importance and that might be damaged by 
     a transportation security incident, include a list of special 
     efforts, measures, or procedures required of any new facility 
     proposed to be located within or near the area that will 
     deter a transportation security incident involving the 
     facility;''.

     SEC. _02. REQUIREMENTS FOR UNITED STATES FACILITY AND VESSEL 
                   VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS.

       Section 70102(b) of title 46,United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(C) by inserting after ``contingency 
     response,'' the following: ``chemicals or processes used by a 
     facility that could be replaced with alternative chemicals or 
     processes that could reduce the health, environmental or 
     economic consequences associated with a transportation 
     security incident in a manner that would not significantly 
     impair the ability of the facility to conduct its 
     business,''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4) by striking ``includes'' and inserting 
     ``adequately addresses''.

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I will notify the majority that I intend on 
withdrawing my amendment, but I just wanted to make this commonsense 
suggestion at this time that perhaps we could continue to discuss and 
work on in the months ahead.
  My amendment deals with the reality that, especially in coastal 
areas, that there are huge containers of very dangerous chemicals and 
other toxic chemicals that are stored in those coastal areas right 
onshore and that, in many instances, those particular toxic materials 
have a now more modern, substitutable chemical which could be

[[Page 20440]]

used in order to achieve the same purposes for the industries within 
our country.
  What my amendment says is that when the Coast Guard writes an area 
maritime transportation security plan, it will now be required to list 
facilities located within the area that could substitute safer 
chemicals or processes in order to reduce the consequences of a toxic 
release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack, but 
the Coast Guard will also have to recommend special efforts or 
procedures for proposed new facilities that might be built near densely 
populated areas or other sensitive areas that might have important 
economic or national security significance so that the consequences of 
a toxic release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack 
might be reduced.
  When the Department of Homeland Security does its vulnerability 
assessment for these facilities, as required under the law, it will 
also have to assess whether the facility could substitute safer 
chemicals or processes in order to reduce the consequences of a toxic 
release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack, and it 
will also have to recommend special efforts or procedures that could 
reduce these consequences for proposed new facilities in its national 
maritime transportation security plan.
  Finally, if the Department of Homeland Security agrees to accept the 
facility's own vulnerability assessment or assessment by a third party, 
which it can do under the law, it will now need to ensure that the 
assessment adequately addresses all the elements of the assessments DHS 
does on its own.
  Hurricane Katrina taught us a lesson. They will probably have to 
level a couple of hundred thousand homes in New Orleans, largely 
because of the toxic materials that have now infiltrated into those 
homes. Here we have an opportunity moving forward to make sure that we 
are reducing the most toxic chemicals, even as we substitute other 
chemicals that can be used in the very same processes to keep our 
American economy humming.
  Mr. Chairman, the events of the past few weeks have served as a wake-
up call in so many areas of our lives. We've learned just how 
vulnerable some of our cities are to Mother Nature, how vulnerable our 
oil and gas infrastructure is, and, frankly, how vulnerable we all are 
as we contemplate the implications of our failed response to Hurricane 
Katrina to future terrorist attacks that will come with no National 
Weather Service warnings and could be even more devastating.
  While the debate over how we can ensure that we move more quickly and 
efficiently to respond to the next Katrina or 9/11 will wait until 
another day, there are aspects of the bill in front of us today that 
can be changed to increase the chances that the potential consequences 
of such a catastrophe are minimized.
  We have learned, for example, that the hurricane has rendered several 
gulf coast refineries inoperable, and in some cases this may be the 
status quo for months. We have also learned that the extent to which 
the hurricane caused breaches in these and other facilities storing 
toxic chemicals is not yet clear--the very preliminary EPA tests show 
highly elevated levels of lead and other toxic materials in some areas 
of New Orleans, and EPA is really only just beginning its environmental 
sampling process. We may be looking at an environmental catastrophe 
that requires an enormous amount of money to remediate, in addition to 
all the other reconstruction and relief costs.
  And, though the hurricane was certainly a catastrophe in and of 
itself, the reality is that a terrorist attack on just one facility 
containing toxic chemicals could have led to even more fatalities. 
According to a recent Congressional Research Service report I 
requested, there are about 50 facilities in Louisiana at which a worst-
case release could put 100,000-999,999 people at risk, as well as 2 
facilities that could impact more than 1 million people. In Florida, 
there are more than 20 facilities at which a worst-case release could 
put 100,000-999,999 people at risk and 7 facilities that could impact 
more than 1 million people, and in Mississippi, there are 2 facilities 
at which a worst-case release could put 100,000-999,999 people at risk. 
Nationwide, more than 100 facilities pose a risk to more than 1 million 
people--an attack on or major natural disaster near any of these 
facilities could result in widespread deaths, injuries and 
environmental contamination.
  While some of the chemicals stored in these facilities are necessary 
to the products or processes being undertaken there, others are not. 
For example, a 2003 report entitled ``Eliminating Hometown Hazards'' by 
Environmental Defense lists several wastewater treatment facilities in 
Louisiana that use chlorine in amounts that could place hundreds of 
thousands of people at risk, even though safer and economically 
competitive alternatives exist and are currently in use elsewhere. 
Press reports indicate that many wastewater treatment facilities in the 
areas impacted by Hurricane Katrina have been disabled, but it is 
unclear as to the status of the stores of toxic chlorine that must have 
been onsite. Another 2003 report entitled ``Needless Risk: Oil 
Refineries and Hazard Reduction'' by the U.S. PIRG Education Fund 
describes a cost-effective alternative to hydrofluoric acid, which is 
used by many refineries, including Chalmette Refining in New Orleans 
which reportedly has 600,000 pounds of hydrofluoric acid stored on 
site. According to the Energy Information Administration and press 
reports, the Chalmette facility spilled tens of thousands of barrels of 
oil into the surrounding neighborhoods and could be closed for months, 
but it is unclear as to the status of the stores of hydrofluoric acid 
that must have been onsite.
  The Maritime Transportation Security Act addressed some of the 
security concerns associated with chemical facilities located at or 
near ports and waterways. As the damage assessment and remediation 
associated with Hurricane Katrina proceeds, I believe that we need to 
focus not just on cleaning up the damage, but also on trying to reduce 
the consequences of similar damage occurring in the future, be it due 
to hurricanes, earthquakes or terrorist attacks. Other legislation may 
address the need to strengthen the levee system surrounding New Orleans 
so that future hurricanes can't breach them as easily--my amendment 
seeks to reduce the potential environmental consequences associated 
with a future breach of the facilities that house toxic materials.
  Specifically, my amendment makes the following common-sense changes 
to the Maritime Transportation Security Act:
  When the Coast Guard writes its Area Maritime Transportation Security 
Plans, it will now be required to list facilities located within the 
area that could substitute safer chemicals or processes in order to 
reduce the consequences of a toxic release caused by a future natural 
disaster or terrorist attack.
  The Coast Guard will also have to recommend special efforts or 
procedures for proposed new facilities that might be built near densely 
populated areas or in other sensitive areas that might have important 
economic or national security significance, so that the consequences of 
a toxic release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack 
might be reduced.
  When the Department of Homeland Security does its vulnerability 
assessments for these facilities as required under the law, it will 
also have to assess whether the facility could substitute safer 
chemicals or processes in order to reduce the consequences of a toxic 
release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack, and 
will also have to recommend special efforts or procedures that could 
reduce these consequences for proposed new facilities in its National 
Maritime Transportation Security Plan.
  Finally, if the Department of Homeland Security agrees to accept a 
facility's own vulnerability assessment or assessment by a third party, 
which it can do under the law, it will now need to ensure that the 
assessment adequately addresses all the elements of the assessments DHS 
does on its own.
  Hurricane Katrina taught us that we can't ignore the experts' 
warnings forever--sooner or later, being shortsighted will catch up to 
us, and as we've seen, the price we may pay may be both costly and to 
some extent avoidable. My amendment incorporates some of the experts' 
warnings on chemical facility security into existing requirements for 
these facilities. Let's not be short-sighted again. I urge my 
colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  First, let me suggest that the statement they are going to bulldoze 
down thousands and thousands of homes because of Katrina that were not 
blown down is not true. The EPA gave us a briefing. The gentleman 
should have sat in on it. If he did not know, they found little 
toxicity in the water. There was nothing there that was being harmful. 
There could be mildew, but it is not from the toxicity in the water. I 
do not like to use the statement. Overexaggeration is not good for 
debate.

[[Page 20441]]

  Secondly, may I suggest it is the Coast Guard being required to do 
another mission, taking from the Coast Guard's real mission and 
requiring them to do something that should be done with EPA or Homeland 
Security but not the Coast Guard.
  I can tell the gentleman, he serves on the Committee on Homeland 
Security, I serve on that committee, and I can tell everybody on that 
committee and this committee, you are not going to whittle away at the 
Coast Guard having to do things that did not have to do with the 
mission to begin with. That is not going to happen on my watch.
  The idea that the Coast Guard will be required to find an alternative 
fuel or alternative toxic chemical in place of another, that is the 
EPA's job, not the Coast Guard.
  I do not know why the gentleman does not offer it to the energy bill 
or to the homeland security bill or some other bill. But why muddy the 
waters of the Coast Guard and require them again to have another 
mission? They have enough missions on their plate right now.
  I do believe this is a mischievous amendment. I believe that most of 
it could actually be done in the communities in which they live. I 
believe that the port cities can make those decisions themselves. Why 
should the Coast Guard have to do this, taking money away from the 
mission they should be doing, that search and rescue, saving our 
seamen, attending to our fishing pirates, doing the things they are 
charged to do?
  I am not going to add another responsibility to this Coast Guard. I 
had hoped the gentleman would withdraw his amendment. He has made his 
other statements. He can put this on another piece of legislation. He 
can argue, but this is a bill we have put together bipartisanwise. It 
is a bill agreed to by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and 
myself and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), and it is a bill that should be left 
intact.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gingrey). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin just by stating that we 
were briefed by the EPA yesterday and that the EPA has indicated that 
they have only just begun sampling and that they have, in fact, found 
highly elevated levels of lead, e.coli and other toxic substances. We 
are only at the beginning of this entire story.
  If I may say to the gentleman from Alaska, I know what the gentleman 
is saying about making amendments on this issue to other bills. He has 
to understand the frustration of being in the minority in this 
institution.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, try 
22 years of being in the minority. That is longer than the gentleman 
has been in the minority.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman has now been able 
successfully, I would say, to have all of his amnesia treatments be 
completely accepted by his system because I do not think he can really 
appreciate how many times I have gone before the Committee on Rules and 
asked for an amendment on this subject, on the energy bill, on the 
homeland security bill. So it is out of frustration, and I will admit 
that, it is out of frustration that I attempt to make it on the Coast 
Guard bill.
  The gentleman has some good points, but this is a point that should 
be raised, and it should be raised especially in the aftermath of New 
Orleans and the toxicity that is now rampant throughout that community. 
There is just the need for us to have this discussion, and it is a 
Coast Guard mission in general, safety and security, although I accept 
the gentleman's point that the EPA would be the point on that, but it 
is difficult for the minority to have amendments successfully accepted 
on any issue that deals with the EPA out here on the House floor.
  That is the reason I raise the point, and that is the reason I 
announced I was going to ask unanimous consent to withdraw it as well, 
so the point would be made that it is an important subject. It should 
be made in other bills. This was an aperture that I was taking 
advantage of to really just begin the process of political education, 
although I know that political activation and political implementation 
are much further down the line and dependent upon the goodwill of the 
Committee on Rules and the Republican leadership that we have an 
amendment like that.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will further 
yield, I do hope the gentleman will withdraw the amendment for numerous 
reasons.
  I have to acknowledge one thing. He has been allowed to offer this 
amendment because I asked for an open rule. I did ask for an open rule 
because I knew the gentleman and some other people wanted an 
opportunity to use the platform to bring up this type of subject, and I 
respect that. I just suggest respectfully that this is not the bill to 
do this on, and I really request the gentleman to think about 
withdrawing the amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, if I may reclaim my time, I appreciate the 
fact that it is an open rule; and, from a rules perspective, even a 
blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while. So I am out here, and 
all of a sudden I run into an open rule; and, believe it or not, for 
me, it is just you have got to make hay when the sun shines, my father 
used to say. So this is just my opportunity to be able to make the 
case, knowing at the end of the day that there were other bills that 
were more appropriate and agencies that had more expertise to be able 
to do the subject, and at the end of the day knowing that the Coast 
Guard will be the agency that deals with the consequences of something 
not being done.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
withdrawn.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1615


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Markey

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gingrey). The pending business is the demand 
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 163, 
noes 254, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 473]

                               AYES--163

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Ortiz

[[Page 20442]]


     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--254

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Bishop (UT)
     Calvert
     Cooper
     Cunningham
     Istook
     Melancon
     Miller, Gary
     Nadler
     Olver
     Pickering
     Rogers (MI)
     Rothman
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)

                              {time}  1639

  Messrs. EVERETT, GERLACH, DeLAY, McHENRY, GILCHREST, SWEENEY, 
OSBORNE, AL GREEN of Texas, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas and Ms. 
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. FATTAH, BRADY of Pennsylvania, JONES of North Carolina, and 
RANGEL changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gingrey). 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 Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Putnam) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gingrey, Acting Chairman 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. 889) to 
authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2006, to 
make technical corrections to various laws administered by the Coast 
Guard, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 440, 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                      Request to Limit Voting Time

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to limit 
voting time to 5 minutes, if ordered, on final passage.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot entertain that request 
without prior notification to the Members.
  The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage of H.R. 889 will be followed by a 5-minute vote, 
if ordered, on adoption of H. Res. 437.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 415, 
nays 0, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 474]

                               YEAS--415

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee

[[Page 20443]]


     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berman
     Bishop (UT)
     Calvert
     Cooper
     Cunningham
     Ford
     Istook
     Melancon
     Miller, Gary
     Nadler
     Olver
     Pickering
     Rogers (MI)
     Rothman
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)

                              {time}  1658

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________