[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 18]
[House]
[Page 24760]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 889, COAST GUARD AND MARITIME 
                       TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2005

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take 
from the Speaker's table 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, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to 
the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alaska?
  There was no objection.


               Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Oberstar

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

  Mr. OBERSTAR moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on 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, be instructed to insist on section 
603 of the House bill.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7(b) of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, we will not take anywhere near the time 
allotted. I will take a few moments to explain the motion which the 
gentleman from Alaska, the chairman of our committee, and I have 
discussed previously.
  The subject of this motion is summed up by a committee hearing held 
earlier this year on the tragedy that occurred November 26, 2004. The 
Athos, 750-foot single-hull tank vessel, hit a submerged object in 
Delaware Bay just south of Philadelphia, spilling 265,000 gallons of 
heavy crude oil.
  In January of this year, our Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime 
Transportation held a field hearing on this marine casualty in 
Philadelphia. The Coast Guard estimated that the costs of cleanup and 
natural resources damages resulting from the grounding of the Athos I 
could be in the range of $200 million. Under current law, the owners of 
the vessel would be liable for costs of only up to $45 million.
  At that hearing, the Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
LoBiondo), and our newly elected Member, the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), raised the concern that the limits of the 
vessel owner's liability for response, cleanup, and restoration to the 
damages caused by this spill were relatively modest, set when the Oil 
Pollution Act of 1990 was enacted over 15 years ago. The Chairman and I 
both remember, when we served on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries 
Committee, we were part of setting that oil pollution liability limit. 
We have not increased those limits since that time even though 
inflation has actually overtaken.
  With the leadership of the chairman of the subcommittee and the 
gentlewoman from Philadelphia and to ensure that the limits do not 
again become out of date, Section 603 directs the President to adjust 
limits of liability. First, Section 603 adjusts the liability limits to 
account for the inflation of the past 15 years, since the Oil Pollution 
Act was enacted. Secondly, the provision requires that the President 
adjust these liability limits not less than every 3 years to reflect 
changes in the Consumer Price Index since the last adjustment.
  I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime 
Transportation, the gentlewoman from Philadelphia (Ms. Schwartz), and 
especially our chairman who has concurred, and we worked together in 
crafting this language to ensure that the Coast Guard reauthorization 
bill includes this provision and the other provisions of H.R. 1412, the 
Delaware River Protection Act of 2005. I think it is an important step 
forward for the environment, for the taxpayers, and for safety of the 
future.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's motion to 
instruct.
  H.R. 889, which was passed unanimously by this House, includes a 
provision that would increase liability limits by approximately 50 
percent for double-hull tank vessels and would, for the first time, 
establish higher liability limits for single-hull tank vessels.
  This legislation was developed through the regular committee process 
on a completely bipartisan basis.
  Further, this bill is supported by the oil and shipping industries as 
a commonsense measure that both increases the industries' 
responsibilities and maintains the protections of the Oil Spill 
Liability Trust Fund to deal with any other major oil spills in the 
future.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct is one I agree with and, 
therefore, I urge that we accept it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, there is no comparable provision that I am 
aware of, and that is why I think it is important for the House to 
insist on this language, a position that I know the Chairman will 
stoutly defend, and we will have unanimous support on our side. We will 
have a bipartisan position.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the gentleman 
from Minnesota's motion to instruct.
  As the gentleman knows, this provision was originally included in 
H.R. 1412, the Delaware River Protection Act, which I introduced and 
which passed with unanimous support in the House. I thank Chairman 
Young, and Ranking Member Oberstar for including the provisions of that 
bill as part of H.R. 889, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation 
Act of 2005.
  I thank the co-sponsors of the original legislation for their 
assistance in crafting this provision: Mr. Saxton, Mr. Castle, Mr. 
Andrews and Ms. Schwartz, and I urge my colleagues to support the 
motion to instruct and the underlying bill as we move to conference 
with the Senate.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will appoint conferees at a later 
time.

                          ____________________