Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from Rhode Island, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, and my colleague from West Virginia, Mr. ROCKEFELLER.

Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee for his leadership in advancing this bill. As he, Senator WHITEHOUSE, and I have discussed, there is significant concern with respect to the safety and security of proposed liquefied natural gas, LNG, facilities throughout the country. Given the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, we know that no system for handling volatile substances is fool-proof.

Over the last several years, the people of Rhode Island have been greatly concerned about proposals to develop LNG facilities on or in close proximity to Rhode Island's shores, as well as proposals to transit LNG traffic through our waterways. I have come to the floor on many occasions to express my deep concerns about the wisdom of these projects; not as a matter of reflexive opposition to LNG but as a matter of the appropriateness of siting these facilities with little State control.

This includes a proposal in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that will have significant impact on the State of Rhode Island, as it calls for vessels to transit through Narragansett Bay and off-load at an offshore berth in Mount Hope Bay just outside of Rhode Island waters. Over the years, members of the Rhode Island and Massachusetts delegations have raised concerns about this project, but the most severe impacts of the vessel traffic and related safety and security measures will be on Rhode Island, which has very little authority to influence the process. The Coast Guard has the responsibility of issuing so-called Letters of Recommendation to establish the suitability of a waterway to accommodate this type of vessel traffic and operation. Its determination is critical in the siting LNG facilities. Unfortunately, Rhode Island, like other states, has little recourse to object to the findings or conditions laid out by the Coast Guard, even though the bulk of the vessel activity will take place in its state waters. I believe the state should have a say about the appropriateness of activities in its waterways and should be consulted, especially about the broader impacts of LNG facilities and vessel traffic on other waterway users and on communities.

Although the underlying House bill includes a port security title, the substitute does not. While I recognize that and that the Committee will be dealing with port security legislation later this year, I think that it is critical that we act on this issue as soon as possible. I would like to work with the Chairman in crafting that bill, but I would also ask for his commitment to work to address the issues related to LNG facilities during conference with the House on the Coast Guard Reauthorization bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source