Marine Log - May 2008 - (Page 16)

INSIDEWASHINGTON Coast Guard bill threatened with veto T he House sort of defied a threatened Bush veto by passing the $8.4 billion Coast Guard Authorization Act by a veto-proof 395 to 7. The legislation had raised the ire of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) because as written it “would adversely affect homeland security, protection of the marine environment, and maritime safety and would unreasonably intrude upon the Commandant’s authority and discretion to command and control the Coast Guard. Cumulatively, these provisions would compromise the organizational efficiency and operational effectiveness of the Coast Guard; ultimately, they could diminish its effectiveness in carrying out its safety, security, and stewardship missions.” What particularly distressed OMB was a section of the bill requiring the Coast Guard to provide security around liquefied natural gas terminals and vessels. It should, said OMB, be eliminated “because it provides an unwarranted and unnecessary subsidy to the owners of private infrastructure that is contrary to the existing assistance framework and would divert finite Coast Guard assets from other high priority missions, as determined by the Commandant.” “If H.R. 2830 were presented to the President with this provision, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill,” said OMB, which issued its views in the form of a formal Statement of Administration Policy. Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen also issued a statement saying he was “deeply concerned” about provisions in the Act that “would have a detrimental effect on the Coast Guard’s ability to carry out our many vital maritime safety, security and environmental protection missions. As the commandant, I have an obligation to the public and our Coast Guard men and women to ensure the Coast Guard retains the necessary discretion and flexibility to meet our mission demands in an oftenchanging, dangerous operating environment. This bill, in its current form, does not do that. I am also disappointed that proposals to protect seafarers who participate in the investigation and adjudication of environmental crimes and enhance our ability to prosecute alien migrant smugglers at sea were not included in the bill. While the bill contains several provisions that would improve Coast Guard operations and mission support, I strongly oppose other provisions as written in the bill that would limit the commandant's authority to direct Coast Guard operations and assign senior personnel to specific duties.” In the end the House passed a Republican amendment softening the LNG security requirements. Great Lakes environmentalists, at least, are happy as clams about ballast water management measures in the Act that will address zebra mussels and other aquatic nuisance species. 16 MARINE LOG MAY 2008 www.marinelog.com http://www.worldwidemetric.com http://www.worldwidemetric.com http://www.marinelog.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Marine Log - May 2008

Marine Log - May 2008 Contents Editorial Second Thoughts Update Inside Washington Europe Plots Its Tech Strategy SDNV Container Ship Update Diesels Can Burn Anything: Even Clean Fuel Boost for Small Shipyards Gateway to the Caribbean Room to Grow Show Review Tech News Newsmakers Contracts Events Website Directory ML Buyer's Guide ML Marketplace Maritime Salvage Letters

Marine Log - May 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.