[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17525-17527]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS 2015 AND 2016

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am about to ask for unanimous consent 
to pass a substitute amendment to the Coast Guard bill. Senator Vitter 
and I hope to get into a bit of a colloquy over it, but first I want to 
explain what we are doing here.
  The Coast Guard bill includes the text of S. 2963, a bill that I 
introduced to permanently eliminate the requirement that small fishing 
boats obtain a permit for discharges incidental to normal operation.
  This is really important for our small boat fishermen. The bill has 
14 cosponsors. I am very happy that Senator Murkowski is now a 
cosponsor of that important legislation.
  This substitute that is at the desk includes that permanent fix so 
that never again do small fishermen have to worry about being subjected 
to these permits.
  It exempts commercial vessels less than 79 feet from having to get 
this discharge permit.
  We first enacted a moratorium on permits in 2008. We have extended it 
twice. The current moratorium expires next week. If we don't act, these 
small vessels will require a permit for the first time. So instead of 
kicking the can down the road again with these moratoria, I think it is 
time to say, once and for all, these small vessels do not and will 
never need a permit. I

[[Page 17526]]

think a temporary moratorium leaves thousands of the boat operators and 
the fishermen in limbo instead of giving them permanent certainty.
  They are different from large ships that discharge ballast water and 
introduce harmful invasive species into our coastal waters. That is why 
a broad array of groups, including the American Sport Fishing 
Association, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Marine Retailers 
Association of America, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, 
and many others, support this permanent exemption for our small boats.
  I hope colleagues will support this, but I understand there is 
another proposal coming forward.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce Committee be discharged 
from further consideration of S. 2444; the Senate proceed to its 
immediate consideration; that the substitute amendment containing a 
permanent exemption for discharges from small commercial vessels and 
fishing vessels--and that is at the desk--be agreed to; the bill, as 
amended, be read three times and passed; the title amendment be agreed 
to; and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  I appreciate the comments of the Senator from California and want to 
work with her toward a common goal. In that spirit, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senator modify her request and agree to the substitute 
amendment, which is also at the desk, which includes a 3-year extension 
of the vessel discharge moratorium.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from California so modify her 
request?
  Mrs. BOXER. I reserve the right to object, but I do not intend to 
object.
  I wish to say I am going to agree to this 3-year moratorium but I am 
a little stunned as to why we are doing this again. We could give these 
small boats a permanent exemption. It is an important economic issue.
  I don't like this approach, but it is the best we can do. I want the 
American people and the fishermen to know we tried so hard to get this 
fixed permanently. But I am glad we have a 3-year moratorium. It is 
better than nothing, and I will therefore agree to the modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request, as 
modified?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  The amendment (No. 3997) in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The bill (S. 2444), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a 
third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
  The title amendment (No. 3998) was agreed to, as follows:

                     (Purpose: To amend the title)

       Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to authorize 
     appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2015, and 
     for other purposes.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I wish to weigh in on this issue, 
because it is a critically important issue for my State--for all 
coastal States, or any State that has commercial fishermen, as my 
colleague from California and as my colleague from Louisiana know.
  I appreciate the fact that we have come to a place where we are going 
to save these small fishermen from the potential burden of reporting to 
EPA for any incidental discharge from their vessels for the next 3 
years.
  I need to acknowledge the good work of my friend from California. She 
has recognized that we began this years ago, back in 2008, when we had 
to work together at that time to get a short-term extension to ensure 
that our small-vessel owners would not be subjected to these EPA 
requirements that most people would say: What is this reporting all 
about?
  For those who need a little more graphic detail as to what we are 
talking about, when you take a commercial fishing vessel out, a 45-foot 
commercial fishing vessel, and you have a good day fishing, there are 
some salmon guts on the deck, a little bit of slime, and you hose it 
off. That would be an incidental discharge that would be reportable to 
the EPA. And if you fail to report, you could be subject to civil 
penalties. That is not what we are talking about here.
  I think it is important to note that we have two leaders here in the 
Senate who perhaps approach some of the EPA issues from a different 
angle. Senator Boxer has been a staunch advocate for making sure that 
when we are talking about clean air and clean water, we are complying 
with those regulations. Senator Vitter has also been a staunch advocate 
for making sure our small businesses, our jobs, and our economic 
opportunities aren't stymied by these regulations.
  So the fact that we have two Members coming together to acknowledge 
we have to do something to ensure these regulations do not impede the 
ability of our small fishermen, of our commercial operators in the 
water--those vessels below 79 feet--that we are not harming them.
  In my home State of Alaska, we are talking about 8,500 commercial 
fishermen who were most anxious that 8 days from now they were going to 
be put in a position where they were effectively violating EPA 
regulations, subject to civil penalties, for the simple act of runoff 
off of their decks.
  So I concur with Senator Boxer, this is something we don't need to be 
going from year to year to year to address. We don't need to inject 
this uncertainty into the operations of our hard-working fishing 
families. We need to have a permanent solution. I want to work with 
that permanent solution. Senator Vitter has clearly indicated he is 
willing to help us with that. Senator Thune in Commerce has made that 
clear. We know we have to address the ballast issues. We will do that. 
And I am looking forward to being engaged with that in the 114th 
Congress.
  But for now, I think it is critically important that consensus has 
been reached. I acknowledge the good work of both the Senator from 
Louisiana and the Senator from California, and Senator Thune, for 
getting us to this point where we can take the pressure off of our 
small commercial operators and ensure that they can do what they do so 
very well.
  I look forward to the next Congress where we are making this 
permanent and, again, where we are dealing with so many of the other 
issues. But I thank my colleagues today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I want to make sure I thank Senator 
Murkowski and Senator Begich. When I started this, Senator Begich was 
my first cosponsor and Senator Murkowski made this bipartisan.
  I think the important thing was that we could have done it 
permanently and I just don't want that lost. We could have done it 
permanently, and we didn't, and that is sad. There are reasons for 
that. I wasn't born yesterday, as most of you can tell.
  I know why it wasn't done. People are going to use this as the little 
engine that could to drive some other stuff behind it which is not good 
stuff. I want to see that we can protect our small boats, and I am 
going to continue to do that. I hope we will work together as we move 
forward in this new Senate, run by--in the case of the committee I 
proudly chair--Senator Inhofe, who I think will be very good on this 
issue; Senator Thune, who we know is good on this issue.
  So we have the pieces in place. And whatever objections there were, I 
don't think they are really objections to the permanency, they are 
political objections to try and use this to get some other bad stuff 
attached to it, and I am not going to let that happen, let me tell you 
right now, no way, no how. So whatever someone has in their mind that 
they are going to connect to this little baby, it isn't going to 
happen, because we can't do that. We can't take one good thing and 
destroy it. I am not going to let that happen.

[[Page 17527]]

  Right now we have a 3-year deal put in place. We can breathe easy. If 
I am someone contemplating buying a small boat, this is one less worry 
I have. I could have had it permanently; I have it for 3 years. It is 
too bad, but at least I have it, and that is good.

                          ____________________