May 26, 1977
Page 16835
UP AMENDMENT NO. 340
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) proposes an unprinted amendment No. 340.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 46, line 6, after "The Secretary" insert a comma and "in cooperation with the Secretary of the Army,".
On page 46, line 12, strike "environmental harm.", and insert in lieu thereof "vessel operation damage, destruction or loss or from structure damage, destruction or loss.".
On page 47, line 1, after "activity" insert "of vessels".
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, may I say, first of all, with respect to this piece of legislation that I regard S. 682 as an important legislative proposal. That may not have appeared to be clear to my good friend from Washington, Senator MAGNUSON, but this is a bill which intends to expand the mandate to the Secretary of Transportation to require that tankers bearing oil and hazardous materials be designed, constructed, operated and manned so as to minimize hazards to safety and to the environment. I support this legislation.
My State of Maine and the citizens of Maine rely on oil transported by tanker for our basic energy demands. The State of Maine is the port of entry for much of the oil that fuels the Province of Quebec. The Portland Harbor is one of the principal ports of entry for oil in the United States. The design, the construction, the operation and the manning of tankers is thus critical to the people of Maine and the marine environment on which we depend for fishery and recreational purposes.
So I do support this legislation. The questions that I have raised with Senator MAGNUSON, I hope, will not imply a lack of appreciation on my part of the basic thrust and purpose of the bill.
The first question I have raised, and that I think we have worked out in the form of the amendment which is at the desk, relates to section 102 of the bill.
Section 102 of S. 682 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to act to protect the Nation's navigable waters and the resources therein from environmental harm. I do not know what this provision means. It is not explained in the report of the committee. There is a passing reference in a comment from the Secretary of Transportation which states that the use of the word navigable waters suggests the definition of navigable waters found in the Water Pollution Control Act.
Mr. President, this section of this legislation is as broad as that provision of the Refuse Act of 1899 which when discovered in 1972 authorized the Secretary of the Army to prohibit any discharge from anyplace into the navigable waters of the United States. This provision grants to the Secretary of Transportation absolute authority to regulate any activity with respect to navigable waters of the United States to "protect the navigable water and resources therein from environmental harm." This provision authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to mandate controls on access to or activity on any waters or shorelines of the United States. As noted above, waters are not defined but the term "navigable waters" is used. In the context of the current controversy regarding Section 404 of the Water Pollution Control Act one has to assume that "navigable waters" for the purpose of this section means at least waters which flow at more than 5 cubic feet per second. And Mr. President there are no smaller streams which I have been able to discover.
As to protection of shorelines there is no definition either. Shorelines may be a few feet or a few miles. The Secretary of Transportation is given an opportunity to control the life blood of communities located along the coast — and on lands which border the Nation's rivers.
Mr. President, I am sure the Senate Commerce Committee did not intend the effect of this amendment. I am sure that the shortness of time associated with reporting this bill caused this provision to be drafted in an unintended manner. I am sure that the Senate Commerce Committee intended as it stated in its report that this provision be an authorization for the Secretary of Transportation to regulate tanker activities so as to protect waters and shorelines.
Mr. President, the amendment at the desk has this effect: It would modify those portions of this section which authorize the Secretary of Transportation to engage in absolute control over the use of land in, on, under, and around the Nation's navigable waters. My amendment would limit specifically any authority under section 102 to regulation of the movement of tankers to and from the waters of the United States so as to protect vessels, structures, waters, and shore areas and other safety requirements.
Further, my amendment would make clear that the Secretary's authority under the law stops at the vessel because the Secretary, acting through the Coast Guard, has ample authority to clean up pollution from tankers under section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
That statement, Mr. President, identifies the nature of my concern, and I repeat that I doubt very much that the Committee on Commerce intended any such broadranging effect. But, nevertheless, to clarify the intent, the language of this amendment has been worked out, I think, by the staffs of both committees, and I submit the amendment.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I will say to the Senator from Maine that, inasmuch as the language does clarify our intent, we never intended the language to be as broad as is suggested by the Senator from Maine. We intended the language to recite existing law.
This is a complicated bill and everybody sees hobgoblins all over every place. But surely we never intended to suggest or do what has been intimated it will do Anyway, this language clarifies it.
Mr. MUSKIE. I appreciate the comments of my good friend from Washington.
Mr. MAGNUSON. But it is important that we pass this bill and get it moving.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would agree with the Senator, and I think nothing further needs to be said on this subject.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Maine.
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, during the consideration of S. 682, the continuing problem of Senate committee jurisdiction surfaced once again. Title II of the bill seems to be the source of the problem. When we in the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation considered the problem of tanker safety, it became obvious that research and monitoring of ocean pollution at the Federal level was in disarray.
And when we sought answers to questions about the effects of oil pollution on fish and other life in the seas, knowledgeable scientists tell us that little is really known. There are differences of opinion and certainly nothing that can be called definitive. Therefore, in S. 682 we called for a comprehensive program of ocean — I underline ocean — pollution research and monitoring.
Yet, Mr. President, Senate Resolution 4 establishing committee jurisdiction, provides the Committee on Environment and Public Works with jurisdiction over environmental research, while. the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has the jurisdiction over science and technology and ocean policy, generally, and marine science. Ocean pollution research does, of course, relate to environmental research and to the public works jurisdictional mandate.
Consequently, I believe, and I hope, this will be cleared up sooner or later before we run into this problem again, which will stop important bills over a jurisdictional argument: "It does not make much difference whether the bill passes or not, we want our jurisdiction." I do not think we should be doing business that way here, and if there is some question about jurisdiction we should get it cleared up. I thought Senate Resolution 4 did clear up the problem. I carefully looked at the hearings on it and the testimony we gave, but apparently there are a lot of people around here who want to look around and grab more jurisdiction. We do not get good legislation passed that way.
Senators know who I am talking about, too.
I do not like to have a contest between, for instance, the Senator from Maine and myself over who has some jurisdiction because it ends up being some kind of contest between who has the most influence on Senators, and it will end up putting us between some staffs that maybe sometimes make mistakes. I do not know who will win that contest. I think I might win it, and he thinks he might win it, but that does not pass legislation.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would not want to contest with the senior Senator from Washington on that basis. I do not think I have a chance. But I appreciate the Senator's observations. I think it is important that we try to resolve whatever jurisdictional questions are involved. I have no desire and I find it very unpleasant to get involved in jurisdictional disagreements.
Mr. MAGNUSON. The Senator will agree with me that on this matter we are going to have to have either the Rules Committee or someone clear up these matters because they are constantly going to occur.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think it would be very helpful.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Yes, and I hope the Senator will join with me. We will go before the Rules Committee, and we will bow down and plead: "Here we are two people who do not want to fight each other, and we ask your advice and guidance which will clear it up for us."
Mr. MUSKIE. I think I will join. I do not know that I would bow down.
Mr. MAGNUSON. We have to before the Rules Committee to get anything done; we better bow down.
Mr. MUSKIE. I will be happy to join the Senator.
Mr. MAGNUSON. All right.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MAGNUSON. It will be just a minute until I finish my statement, and then I shall yield.
In view of this fact, there is a real urgency in view of the London conference, and all these things that are going on, to get the bill passed. Of course, title II is not the major part of the bill. The bill has a major thrust of safety.
Mr. MUSKIE. Title I is very important, may I say.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I intend to move to strike title II from the bill, introduce it as a separate bill and ask unanimous consent that it be referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works for not to exceed 30 days which would keep the joint jurisdiction. We have many bills on which we have joint jurisdiction. There is the oil spill liability which the two committees are working on.
So, without giving up any of the arguments that may be made on both sides or giving up anything, we are going to do that and I have no doubt that they will concur. I know the committee will concur — the Senator pointed out that he surely would himself — to the general need of the legislation, and we can obtain swift enactment of that particular portion of the bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think we can, may I say to my good friend.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield to the distinguished Senator.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I state that I concur with the chairman with regard to taking this action now for the purpose of assuring that the tanker safety bill in title I will not be delayed, but on the basis that the action we are taking certainly does not, at least in my opinion, concede the jurisdictional challenge that has been raised by Senator MUSKIE's committee.
Our committee does have exclusive jurisdiction over the NOAA activities. We have exclusive jurisdiction over the oceans and marine safety. The monitoring of marine accidents on the oceans is done by the Coast Guard, and the Commerce Committee has exclusive jurisdiction over activities of the Coast Guard.
We went into this whole question of research that apparently has provoked this challenge in terms of the ocean pollution research monitoring program because of the Argo Merchant accident and its effect on marine fisheries, and we have jurisdiction over marine fisheries. We have jurisdiction over the merchant marine, and we have jurisdiction over the technology portion of the activities of the merchant marine that should be involved in vessel construction to prevent environment damage.
The question, as I understand it, is the Environment and Public Works Committee bases its jurisdiction on their grant of jurisdiction under Senate Resolution 4 over water pollution.
Mr. MUSKIE. No, it is more extensive than that. And if the Senator will yield, I will make a statement on the definition of standards following the statement of the Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. I appreciate that and I think it should be defined in the RECORD. I think we should get this subject resolved by the Rules Committee, as the chairman of our committee indicated.
The impact, what we are dealing with in this area, requires a recognition of the sensitivity of timing, and if we are to institute the programs that are necessary to meet the development of technology in pollution control and avoidance, which falls short of, as I understand it, the jurisdiction of the Environment Committee, we particularly in terms of our new jurisdiction in science, engineering, technology, and the research capacity that we should have in terms of that function that was given to us, as many other functions were taken away from us, then I cannot see that we should be subjected to joint referrals of bills that we have worked on that are designed to prevent coming into the jurisdictional area of the Public Works Committee.
I, for one, again join with the chairman in this one instance. But I believe we must have capability for authorization of research by the agencies we deal with. We must have the legislative oversight of that research and the ability to formulate legislation to deal with the problems that are brought forth as a result of that research and the environmental aspects and water pollution aspects of the Committee on Environment and Public Works should not lead us to the position where we are going to have joint referrals. If that is the result, then Senate Resolution 4 failed.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. STEVENS. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I assure the Senator I find this afternoon the necessity of discussing this question one of the most unpleasant aspects of my duties as a Senator. I do not like it at all. If the Senator thinks I enjoy coming to the floor to argue with my distinguished friend fromWashington or my good friend from Alaska, he is mistaken.
There is a misunderstanding here and a disagreement, and it is an honest one on both sides. But I suggest to the Senator we do not challenge the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction to do those things within its jurisdiction to prevent pollution. But what we are saying is that we have jurisdiction as granted to us — if it is taken away that is fine — to deal with what has been created. That happens in territorial waters; it happens in a contiguous zone. We are not challenging the committee's jurisdiction over tankers. But in Senate Resolution 4 the committee was given jurisdiction over environmental research and development.
Not technological research, but environmental research and development. Ocean dumping, environmental aspects of the Outer Continental Shelf lands, environmental aspects of deep water ports, water pollution — all of that deals with the consequences of pollutants that are not prevented by proper technology or proper operation of tankers, and so on.
We do not challenge that aspect of the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction. Indeed, I do not want to challenge the Commerce Committee at all, if I had my druthers. But Senate Resolution 4 undertook to give us certain jurisdiction, enlarged it in some respects, and changed the name of our committee to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Unfortunately, Senate Resolution 4 left some ambiguities, at least in the perception of some people, and we are caught up in one of them.
I am sorry about that. I do not like it. I do not enjoy it, and I hope it does not happen again. But each of us feels a sense of responsibility with respect to protecting his committee's interests as he sees them.
I do not disagree with Senator MAGNUSON'S right to do that, and no one can do it more effectively than he. And I certainly do not disagree with that of the Senator from Alaska. But here we have a problem of environmental research; it is not technological research. If the committee's title 2 were technological research, I would have no quarrel with it. But it is environmental research, and that gets into the question of pollution after it takes place. That is the area that we have got to fight out somehow, to resolve, and I think the pragmatic solution we have taken this afternoon is realistic.
Neither of us can seize the ultimate argument, but we have agreed that to deal with this problem, we will refer it to the Environment and Public Works Committee, and then maybe in the meantime follow through on Senator MAGNUSON'S suggestion that we sit down together, sit down with the Rules Committee, and find out where these various responsibilities ought to be established.
Whatever the result, I assure my good friend from Alaska it is fine with me. I have plenty of work to do without enlarging any of my committees' jurisdictions. But if a matter is within my jurisdiction — and this is the attitude that Senator MAGNUSON expressed to me, and I applaud it — if a matter is within my jurisdiction, then I have a responsibility with respect to it, and so does the Senator from Alaska.
Having stated that, it seems to me maybe we have taken the first step toward resolving our differences.
(Mr. DURKIN assumed the chair as Presiding Officer.)
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I agree with my good friend to a certain extent. We agreed to joint jurisdiction on oil spill liability because of the obvious—
Mr. MUSKIE. No, we have not agreed to that.
Mr. STEVENS. We did in the promulgation of Senate Resolution 4.
Mr. MUSKIE. No, we did not.
Mr. STEVENS. Well, we have a bigger fight than the Senator thinks, then.
Mr. MUSKIE. Well, I suspect we have, then. I saw it coming in January. If it comes, it comes. I tried to avoid precipitating it around this bill, because Senator MAGNUSON wants this bill to go forward, and I am all for that.
But I do not agree to a blanket judgment on that final question. We will get to it when we get to it.
Mr. STEVENS. I thought we got to it on Senate Resolution 4, before the Rules Committee. At any rate, that is my memory. But what my friend is saying is that those of us who have the problem of dealing with tanker safety, and want to set up a program for monitoring that, which means monitoring the effect of antipollution. mechanisms, the Senator's committee is authorized to assert jurisdiction in connection with those antipollution safety mechanisms.
We find ourselves in the position, in these tankers, that this whole problem is related to tanker safety so far as I am concerned. It is not dealing with what the Senator's committee is dealing with in terms of pollution once it occurs. We are talking in terms of actions taken to prevent it from occurring.
The Senator is saying that when we do that, we must automatically move over and give his committee jurisdiction to begin with. I say that is not the way I understood it in connection with Senate Resolution 4. I do not want to prolong this, but if the Senator is correct, Senate Resolution 4 increased the work of the Senate by requiring more Senators to look at more legislation in a redundant matter, rather than permitting us to deal with legislation in a more objective, orderly fashion.
I believe joint referrals can really spell not only the delay, but at times the death of legislation.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do, too.
Mr. STEVENS. I am sure my friend knows that.
We ought not to be involved in jurisdictional battles over Senate Resolution 4 in this area. The Senator has the Environment and Public Works Committee. I know of nothing we do in the Senate that does not in some way affect the environment. The Senator from Maine also has the Budget Committee, and I know of nothing we do here that does not in some way affect the budget.
If we are not careful, we will find we are all members of the Senator's two committees, because I really think they are two all-embracing subjects, the budget and the environment, and that everything we do as Congress has some connection with them.
With due respect to him, the Senator does not quite fit the definition of a bottleneck, but if everything we do with respect to tanker safety has to go through a bottleneck, I think we made a mistake in adopting Senate Resolution 4.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Long before this controversy arose I reached that conclusion about Senate Resolution 4. I do not thinkSenate Resolution 4 has done anything, irrespective of this disagreement, to reduce workloads or make schedules more convenient for Senators, or anything like that.
Would the Senator like to know how his argument sounds to me?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator's argument is valid, I reach this conclusion: All pollution is generated by technology of one kind or another; so if those who have jurisdiction over the technology have jurisdiction over the environmental consequences as well, then they are the ones who have universal jurisdiction, not I.
I do not think any such arbitrary black and white judgment is necessary to resolve this issue. I have no difficulty with identifying what I consider a legitimate line between our jurisdictions that requires no joint referral.
Mr. STEVENS. I hope we can. I do not think we would ever assert that jurisdiction. In the first place, all pollution does not come from technology. I saw some great natural pollution last weekend when I was visiting Juneau and saw the ice break up.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think the Senator knows what we are talking about.
Mr. STEVENS. But we do not claim that, and we would not claim jurisdiction over matters that deal with water pollution. But I do think we must be able to deal with the aspects of pollution, in order to determine what in fact must be the criteria of tanker safety; or we should be told what the aspects of pollution are, and then we should dealwith tanker safety after your committee determines the criteria.
Mr. MUSKIE. Why do you not ask for jurisdiction over clean air? It is the same thing. You know, the effect of machinery and one thing and another that has an effect on air pollution.
Mr. STEVENS. We have never claimed jurisdiction over clean air.
Mr. MUSKIE. I know you have not, but I am curious to know why not.
Mr. STEVENS. I am sure the Senator could claim jurisdiction over bills we bring out in terms of automobile safety, in terms of restricting the size of engines, the elevation of the ground, and the construction of the bodies, because of their impact upon energy consumption, which in fact impacts clean air. If you want to move that way, I am sure you will get it on those, too.
Mr. MUSKIE. In the Clean Air Act, we have never yet tried to mandate anything with respect to the way in which an automobile is designed. All we have said is that it must achieve a certain health result. We have not told them how to build it. We have not told them what specifications to build into it, what horsepower, what weight. We have done nothing of that kind. We have stayed away from it. We have dealt only with the health consequences. We stayed away from the technological side.
That is not to say that setting health standards does not have an effect on what automobile companies must do in building an automobile, but we do not try to design it. We would not presume to. We do not have the capability, the expertise, or the background.
I would not do it to tankers. Tankers are none of my business, except when they leave a given stretch of water they leave behind them certain pollutants which are our responsibility. That is all. To me, that is a fairly simple line to draw. Apparently, I am over-simplistic.
Mr. STEVENS. What I am saying is this life is short enough. I do not see any reason why two groups of Senators should go over the same legislation unless there is a substantial conflict concerning the jurisdictions of their committees. Setting up an organization to monitor the effectiveness of ocean pollution mechanisms and the research that is under way — that is what we are setting up in this bill — does not seem to me to be invading the Senator's jurisdiction over authorizing the research that EPA is doing, the National Science Foundation, or anybody else. We want to monitor. I believe it is within our jurisdiction to do so.
Mr. MUSKIE. By unilateral judgment?
Mr. STEVENS. In the matter of judgment as to when is there a substantial conflict. That is the problem. This is the first one. I say to the Senator, I know there are two other bills where we have this conflict coming with the Senator's committee.
I do believe tanker safety is important enough, Mr. President, and has to move. There is no use prolonging this, so far as I am concerned. I will not oppose it. But I will give notice that I will oppose it in terms of the expanded jurisdiction that the terms "ocean pollution" means in relation to the jurisdiction of our committee on the next occasion. I hope we have explained it in a way that it will avoid difficulty. In terms of whether or not the parliamentary situation is strained and we will have a clear decision, if the Rules Committee will not make it, then it will be made by the Senate, that our committee has the oceans jurisdiction.
We must, I feel, have the oceans jurisdiction in order to deal with the oceans as a generic subject matter to solve someof the problems that I see coming in the balance of this century.
Mr. MUSKIE. The word "pollution" does not appear in the Senator's jurisdiction.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. CULVER. Mr. President, title II of the legislation before us today — S. 682 — establishes a comprehensive ocean pollution research and monitoring program, including the effects of petroleum in the marine environment, and authorizes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — NOAA — to act as a lead agency for coordinating ocean pollution research.
The office of Science and Technology is designated to assist NOAA in this coordination.
Mr. President, environmental research and development is a $1.8 billion Federal investment, and it is conducted by many Federal agencies and departments. I strongly agree with the members of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Technology that there is little cooperation among Federal agencies on ocean pollution research. As a matter of fact, there is little cooperation among Federal agencies on environmental research in general. Such research is often duplicative and the exchange of information between agencies is poor. As a 1976 study by the General Accounting Office concluded, there "is no overall Federal leadership for environmental research nor does there appear to be adequate coordination" of research efforts.
The report by the Senate Commerce Committee accompanying S. 682 indicates that the purpose of title II is to end the neglect and unnecessary duplication of ocean pollution research. I agree that this problem should be corrected. Senate Resolution 4 clearly vested all the responsibility for "environmental research and development" in the Public Works Committee rather than the Commerce Committee. Such a jurisdiction over environmental research for the Public Works Committee is appropriate. As chairman. of the Subcommittee on Resource Protection, I believe we will be able to rationally order research activities only if they are considered as a whole. Fortunately, the Committee on Environment and Public Works is taking the necessary steps to address these shortcomings.
To develop a systematic mechanism for coordinating environmental research, the Public Works Committee recently reported legislation authorizing funding for EPA's environmental research and development program for fiscal year 1978. In addition to requiring specific funding for long range research, this legislation directs the Adminstrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to coordinate environmental research activities with other Federal agencies in order to minimize unnecessary duplication. EPA is the logical starting point for this coordinating responsibility because it is familiar with all forms of environmental research, including ocean pollution.
In addition, S. 1417 authorizes the Council on Environmental Quality to inventory all environmental research by the Federal Government and to make appropriate recommendations to the Congress by January 1, 1978, regarding improvements in the coordination of such research activities. This is an important step forward, and I believe it is a proper way to begin a rational ordering of a critically significant investment. Only through effective environmental research can we predict adverse environmental damage and develop effective pollution control programs.
Unfortunately, title II of S. 682 would run counter to what the Public Works Committee has already proposed. The designation of NOAA as the lead agency at this time could well result in greater fragmentation and unnecessary overlap of research responsibilities.
The Senate Resource Protection Subcommittee will conduct further hearings on environmental research and on CEQ's findings in the future. We should first wait and see what research is being done and by whom so as to insure the most effective and economical attention of research resource efforts.
The agreement reached today by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Technology (Mr. MAGNUSON) , and by the chairman of Environmental Pollution Subcommittee (Mr. MUSKIE) properly addresses the misunderstanding concerning the jurisdiction over title II of S. 682 and lets the Senate continue its consideration of this important measure. I am confident, the Public Works Committee will expedite its consideration of this ocean pollution research provision.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, if the Senator from Maine will give me his attention, this is like the house being on fire and two fire departments show up, one from the north and one from the south. They get into an argument as to who is going to handle the hose and the house burns down. To keep the house from burning down, I am going to offer an amendment, but I am going to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Alaska. The next time it comes up we are going to meet it head on and have a vote on the Senate floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is fine with me.
UP AMENDMENT NO. 341
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I move to strike out all the language on page 71, line 21, through page 79, line 16. I send an amendment to the desk, Mr. President, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON) proposes an unprinted amendment No. 341.
On page 71, line 21, Strike out all language through page 79, line 16.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, may I make a brief statement on this bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Tanker and Vessel Safety Act of 1977, which we have before us today, deserves the enthusiastic support of this Congress. Rhode Islanders, fresh from the memory of the Argo Merchant last fall, and citizens of all the other eastern seaboard States, appreciate the need to protect our coastal waters from tanker accident spillage.
As we find ourselves importing more and more petroleum from abroad to meet our energy needs, all Americans, not just those on the coast, must concern themselves with the establishment of strict standards for tankers and vessels, and this act does that. The increased quantity of oil spillage into our ocean environment is directly related to the increase in the amount of imported oil.
There are two principal means of attacking this, Mr. President: first of all, strict standards of safety of tanker operation, and, second, stricter construction standards. I am pleased that this legislation takes decisive steps forward in each of these areas.
According to a 1976 National Academy of Sciences report, 80 percent of the accidental oil spills are the result of human error. This bill will provide for improved pilot requirements for vessels in U.S. waters, more effective tanker inspection authority, and mandatory installation of safety and navigation equipment.
The stringent construction standards mandated by this legislation should afford significant protection from pollution resulting from both accidents and current practices of tank cleaning in the deballasting operation. Double bottom construction and installation of segregated ballast systems are prime factors of these new requirements.
The small increase in the cost of transporting oil which will result from these new requirements is well worth it. I think it has been estimated at just some 2 percent of the transportation cost, not the total cost of oil but just the transportation.
In 1975 alone, the National Academy ofSciences estimated that 2.1 million metric tons of oil were dumped in the marine environment. Of this amount, as much as 85 percent could have been prevented if tankers were equipped with segregated ballast systems alone.
Mr. President, the new standards and requirements set forth in this bill coupled with the Secretary of Transportation's clear authority to bar substandard vessels from operating in U.S. waters, are urgently needed. I urge my colleagues to give their strong support to this legislation.
I congratulate the chairman of the Commerce Committee, the senior Senator from Washington, and the ranking member for the excellent job they have done with this bill. Thank you, Mr. President.
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SUBMITTED ON S. 682
Mr. MUSKIE. The Environment and Public Works Committee's jurisdiction over title II of S. 682 rests on two clear jurisdictional claims: responsibility for all environmental research and development, and authority over water pollution and the marine environment generally. In fact, this more general jurisdiction over protecting the marine environment covers aspects of the entire tanker safety bill, not just title II.
When the Select Committee to Study the Senate Committee System first proposed a reorganisation of Senate committee jurisdiction, one main principle from which they worked was the consolidation of all environmental jurisdiction in one committee. There was some diffusion of that principle as the Rules Committee and the Senate marked up Senate Resolution 4, on a few points where environmental concerns were difficult to segregate from other responsibilities.
Senate Resolution 4, however, did contain clear consolidation of environmentaljurisdiction in the Committee on Environment and Public Works. This included specific grants of jurisdiction over matters relating to protection of the marine environment. Before the adoption of Senate Resolution 4, the Committee on Environment and Public Works jurisdiction over environmental protection rested primarily on the phrase "oil and other pollution of the navigable waters," and the extension of that jurisdiction to cover new environmental issues such as air pollution, noise, and solid waste. The new rules used the more general phrase "water pollution" to cover oil and all other pollution of all the waters within the jurisdiction the United States.
In addition, Senate Resolution 4 provided specific jurisdiction for the Committee on Environment and Public Works over "ocean dumping" — the placing or spilling of anything in the ocean from a vessel, "the environmental aspects of Outer Continental Shelf lands" — which covers the total marine environment to the extent of the U.S. jurisdiction, and "the environmental aspects of deep water ports" — which covers protection of the environment on the high seas and in U.S.waters from such ports.
This amounts to almost total responsibility for regulating activities affecting the marine environment, including both coastal and ocean waters. I understand that the Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over navigation, safety, transportation, and commerce aspects of coastal and ocean waters, and has ocean policy generally when jurisdiction is not specifically granted to another committee. The Rules Committee, however, in its report on Senate Resolution 4 addressed this relationship. That report said:
The jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation includes marine and ocean navigation, safety, and transportation, including navigational aspects of deep water ports. The use of the word safety is not intended to impinge upon the jurisdiction of the Committee on Environment and Public Works over environmental policy and environmental aspects of Outer Continental Shelf lands and deepwater ports . . . the term 'safety' in the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee is to apply generally to the navigational and transportation aspects related to the new and existing marina technologies, construction, and operation of marine structures and vessels.
Therefore, the Commerce Committee may have jurisdiction over tanker or other vessel standards and operations. The Committee on Environment and Public Works has sole jurisdiction over the environmental aspects of ocean related activities, including oil spill cleanup and liability measures.
Rule XXV now contains two other clear grants of consolidated jurisdiction to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Item I is "environmental policy," item 2, "environmental research and development." Nothing in any of the other committees' jurisdiction cast doubt on or conflicts with these exclusive jurisdictional statements. Title II of S. 682 is called the Ocean Pollution Research Program Act. It gives particular emphasis to the effects of petroleum in the marine environment. Pollution research and oil pollution are exclusive within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. That committee has recently reported legislation, S. 1417, which is in conflict with the provisions of title II.
Under Senate rule XLV, added by Senate Resolution 4:
It shall not be in order to consider any proposed committee amendment ... which contains any significant matter not within the jurisdiction of the committee proposing such amendment.
An entire title of S. 682 is within jurisdiction of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. We are not asking for referral of the entire bill. The amendments we have offered to title I preserve our jurisdiction with respect to that title. We are urging that, however, title II be removed from the bill so that it may be considered by the committee with jurisdiction over it.
This would make clear that the Senate in adopting Senate Resolution 4 did, in fact, intend for the Committee on Environment and Public Works to have jurisdiction over all environmental research and regulatory legislation, including the marine environment
Mr. SCHMITT. I would like to direct a question to the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. HOLLINGS) regarding his amendment to S. 682 which was accepted yesterday. My understanding is that under section 104, your amendment established a preliminary deadline on Jule 1, 1980, for having segregated ballast and inerting gas systems retrofitted in tankers. Your amendment does not delete any existing requirements of section 104, but is in addition to it. Am I correct in saying, then, that your retrofit incentive fee is operative only for the period from July 1, 1980 to June 30, 1983, and would not continue after that date?
Mr. HOLLINGS. That is correct. As of June 30, 1983, vessels that have not met the requirements by that date would not receive a certificate for carrying all and other hazardous material in U.S. navigable waters and would be prohibited from doing so. Thus the retrofit incentive fee would no longer be necessary, since lack of proper certification is a more serious sanction. The retrofit incentive fee is an encouragement for vessel owners to begin retrofitting segregated ballast and inerting gas systems as early as possible, so we will not have a last minute run on limited shipyard facilities and disrupt the flow of oil by tankers into this country.
Mr. SCHMITT. Thank you, Senator HOLLINGS. I just wanted to make certain that my understanding was correct.
Mr. DURKIN. Mr. President, a few months ago we witnessed one disastrous tanker accident after another, on all coasts of the United States. Among these was the Argo Merchant oil spill off the Northeastern coast, the most severe in this Nation's history. Old, foreign rust buckets poured millions of gallons of oil into American coastal waters as a deadly libation to inadequate protection of our coastal environment. The American people joined the Coast Guard in helplessly witnessing the destruction of ocean and coastal wildlife, the waste of needed and precious fuel, and adverse environmental impacts to an extent which as of now cannot be fully measured. Particularly in the Northeast, we could not and cannot afford these losses.
All but one of these tankers was registered under a foreign flag. Not one of the tankers involved in these oil spills was less than 10 years old; many of these tankers were over 20 years old. Some had been involved in multiple previous accidents, and had continued to steam away unregulated and unchecked. Moreover, the largest of these tankers did not exceed 100,000 deadweight tons.
Construction of tanker super ships in the early 1970's looms as an ominous and foreboding shadow should any one of these very large new ships run aground, collide, or otherwise sustain structural damage leading to an oil spill.
The time has come for us to move quickly to close the loopholes in our tanker safety standards from which oily destruction pours. The Coast Guard had, until President Carters March 1977 order, resisted unilateral action by this country in the face of international conventions dealing with maritime issues. However, these international conventions produced lax operating, construction and safety standards. Moreover, the record shows effective unilateral Coast Guard regulations made operative with respect to liquefied natural gas — LNG — carriers.
The bill before this Senate today steps firmly and knowledgeably into the breach, mandating needed standards for construction and operation of all tankers entering our navigable waters and ports. It is particularly important for Congress to pass this clear, and hopefully effective, statement, conveying direction. and undisputed jurisdiction to the executive branch to combat energy waste, pollution, and polluters. The regulatory history of the 1972 act should be a sufficient rejoinder to those who would leave nonmandatory discretion in the hands of a reluctant bureaucracy. Let the Coast Guard now show its commitment by vigorous enforcement of the requirements in this bill, which represents the collective wisdom of numerous studies and experts.
For example, numerous studies have advocated the stiffening of maritime licensing requirements to include formal and recurrent training of pilots and other personnel, performance testing, periodic renewal and proficiency checks, and restrictive licensing based on the size and class vessel involved. The absence of such regulation become all the more appalling when we read statistics and reports indicating that over one-half of all tanker accidents are caused by some degree of human failure, and that almost 80 percent of merchant marine casualties are related to human error. S. 682 states minimum requirements for pilotage based in part on Coast Guard determinations of sufficient training and proficiency. The Secretary of Transportation is also to develop such standards for uniform adoption by the States. I hope to see the administration active and effective in this area, obviating the need for Congress to readdress this issue 4 years down the road.
In addition, the apparent Coast Guard inability to deal effectively with major oil spills and disasters in all but the calmest seas must be investigated. Title II of this bill, providing for research on oil spill detection and control techniques, and on the environmental impact of oil spills, is needed in order for us to discover and assess better alternatives for protection of our environment.
Mr. President, I was pleased to cosponsor this important bill, and I urge its passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment.
If there be no further amendment to be proposed, the question is on agreeing to 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 PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and the third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry. It has just been called to my attention — really not a parliamentary inquiry but it is just a statement — that section 207 which dealt with the monitoring system with regard to the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act has nothing to do with pollution. It has to do with the monitoring of the space satellite techniques, of observation and reporting on the position, identification and course of vessels within the 200 mile limit. That study has really nothing to do with this controversy. Section 207 provides for the study and section 208(b) authorizes it.
I wonder if the Senator from Maine would agree that we might take section 207 and section 208(b) and add it to title I and not refer those sections to his committee. If he will examine them, they have nothing to do with the problem. It really has to do with the Administrator, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Transportation trying to use the satellite capability to monitor vessel traffic in the 200mile limit.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, that would be acceptable.
Mr. STEVENS. I might say to the Senator from Washington that we did in fact authorize funds in our committee for this study already. We are trying to put them into the markup.
What is the parliamentary situation with regard to the bill, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will take unanimous consent to further amend it.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that we revert back to second reading for the purpose of a specific amendment to the Senator's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Notwithstanding third reading and the agreement to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, without objection, the bill will be amended by inserting section 207 and 208 (b) at the appropriate place.
Mr. STEVENS. I move that the clerk be permitted to renumber the sections appropriately as they are renumbered here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.