Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. KERRY, and Mr. WYDEN):

S 2440. A bill to provide the Coast Guard and NOAA with additional authorities under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, to strengthen the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2006 with my colleagues Senators LAUTENBERG, KERRY, and WYDEN. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) was passed shortly after the Exxon Valdez ran aground in 1989, spilling 11 million gallons of crude oil in Alaska's pristine Prince William Sound--the largest spill in US. history. OPA 90 revolutionized oil spill risk management and we have OPA 90 to thank for improving oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response.

However, in a report and testimony recently provided to Congress, the U.S. Coast Guard identified serious shortcomings in our oil spill management system. First, in a report transmitted to Congress on May 12, 2005, the Coast Guard noted that the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund was in danger of being depleted. And they noted that every state or U.S. territory has received money from the Fund for oil spills. Without the Fund, states would have to provide funds for these emergency events.

Through legislation that I cosponsored last year with Senator STEVENS and Senator INOUYE, which became law as part of the Energy Policy Act, we solved part of this problem by reinstating OPA 90's per-barrel fee on oil, in order to replenish the Fund, and raising the total level of principal from $1 billion to $2.7 billion. However, the Coast Guard also noted that the costs of oil spills increasingly exceed the liability limits for responsible parties that were set back in 1990. Under OPA 90, responsible parties can be reimbursed for costs above their liability limit from the Fund--and this practice continues to deplete the Fund. This issue also was highlighted at a field hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Fisheries and Coast Guard that I chaired last August in Seattle, where the Coast Guard testified that the current limits are too low. The bill I introduce today will increase these caps so that we return to the ``polluter pays'' principle enshrined in OPA 90.

The devastating hurricane Katrina also led to an historic number of oil spills. The Coast Guard has estimated that such spills could amount to close to $1 billion. If these claims are made against the Fund, the Fund will be quickly wiped out. That's why the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2006 would ensure that such claims would be covered through the Stafford Act process and supplemental funding, and not through the regular claims process of OPA 90. Finally, this bill would require improved accountability of how monies from the Fund are expended by Federal agencies.

The Coast Guard also testified in our hearing that we must remain vigilant in our efforts to prevent oil spills. According to Coast Guard data, although the number of oil spills from vessels has decreased enormously since passage of OPA 90, the volume of oil spilled nationwide is still significant. In fact, vessels spilled 665,432 gallons of oil in 1992, while in 2004, the total was higher, at 722,768 gallons. Significant numbers of spills are still occurring. In 2004, there were 36 spills from tank ships, 141 spills from barges, and 1,562 spills from other vessels, including cargo ships. And even though the number of spills from tankers declined from 193 spills in 1992 to 36 spills in 2004, a single incident from a vessel like the Exxon Valdez can be devastating, as the recent Athos I incident in the Delaware River and Bay demonstrates.

The bill I introduce today addresses a number of key areas to improve prevention and response. Because human error is the leading cause of accidental oil spills, the Coast Guard would be required to identify and pass regulations to address the most frequent sources of human error that have led to oil spills from vessels and ``near-misses.'' It would require the Coast Guard to ensure the safety of single hull tankers and other high-risk vessels by increasing inspections of such vessels. The Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2006 also would require the Coast Guard to address and reduce the increased risk of oil spills from oil transfers. It would also make companies who knowingly hire substandard single-hull tank vessels after 2010 ``responsible parties'' in order to provide a disincentive for such contracts.

Of particular importance to my state, the bill would provide a mechanism for year-round funding of the Neah Bay rescue tug, a central element of the oil spill prevention safety net for Washington state's outer coast. It would also increase oil spill preparedness in the Strait of Juan de Fuca by changing the definition of ``High Volume Port'' for Puget Sound to make the westerly boundary begin at the entry to the Strait. This change would require oil spill response equipment to be stationed along the entire Strait and not just east of the current line at Port Angeles. In addition, the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2006 would require improved coordination with federally-recognized tribes on oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response. Finally, the bill would codify into federal law the establishment of the Oil Spill Advisory Council, which was created by the Washington State Legislature and Governor Gregoire in the wake of the October 2004 Daleo Passage Oil Spill. My bill would provide $1 million annually to support the Council's important work.

The slow response to the oil spill in Dalco Passage in the Puget Sound was largely attributed to difficulties with detecting the oil that was spilled. The Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2006 would reinvigorate a federal research program on oil spill prevention, detection, and response, and would establish a grant program for the development of cost-effective technologies for detecting discharges of oil from vessels, including infrared, pressure sensors, and remote sensing. It would also require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with other federal agencies, to conduct an analysis of the condition and safety of all aspects of oil transportation in the United States, and provide recommendations to improve such safety. This was a specific recommendation of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.

The Department of Justice has also noted that a major category of oil spills are intentional discharges of oil from vessels. The United States cannot address this problem alone. Thus, the bill would require the Coast Guard to pursue stronger enforcement measures for oil discharges in the International Maritime Organization and other appropriate international organizations.

Oil spill prevention and response is timely for Congress' consideration because waterborne transportation of oil in the United States continues to increase, significant volumes of oil continue to be released, and the potential for a major spill remains unacceptably high. Recent spills involving significant quantities of oil have occurred off the coasts of Alaska, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington, and involved barges, tankers, and non-tank vessels.

One thing we've learned from these spills is that it is more cost-effective to prevent oil spills than it is to clean-up oil once it is released into the environment. We've also learned that although double hulls and redundant steering do increase tanker safety, these technologies are not a panacea and we need to do more to ensure against oil spills.

The Federal Government has a responsibility to protect the Nation's natural resources, public health, and environment by improving Federal measures to prevent and respond to oil spills. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/