A concurrent resolution to correct the enrollment of the bill H.R. 889.

Mr. President, I rise today to endorse passage of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006. However, I would like to clarify several points with regard to section 414 of the conference report. This section deals with construction of offshore wind energy facilities in the area off the coast of Massachusetts known as Nantucket Sound, and it will require the Secretary of the Interior to incorporate any ``reasonable terms and conditions the Commandant of the Coast Guard determines to be necessary to provide for navigational safety.'' Interpretation of this clause will be critical to ensuring that navigation, aviation, and communications are not adversely impacted by construction of such a facility.

A company known as Cape Wind, LLC has proposed the permanent installation of 130 wind turbines, each reaching 417 feet in height, on 24 square miles of Nantucket Sound in an area surrounded by three commercial airports, two busy ferry routes, and a major shipping channel. The area is heavily utilized by commercial fishermen and recreational boaters as well. Perhaps most importantly, the project would be situated less than 15 miles from the only PAVE/PAWS missile defense radar station on the entire eastern seaboard. Studies conducted in and around offshore wind farms in Britain have shown that these installations can have adverse impacts on radar for boats, aircraft, and air traffic controllers, and they may pose a hazard to navigation.

It must be left up to the Commandant of the Coast Guard to decide what is necessary to prevent negative impact to navigation, aviation, and communications caused by the proposed wind farm. We trust the Commandant to act responsibly and only

prescribe reasonable terms and conditions. If someone wants to challenge his decision as unreasonable, they will have to raise the matter in court. It will be up to the courts, not the Secretary of the Interior, to decide if the Commandant's terms and conditions are unreasonable.

Further, we must remain open to the possibility that the Commandant may find that no amount of mitigation could be sufficient to eliminate the potential detrimental effects of the specific siting of this development. If the final determination of the Commandant is that the proposed siting is unacceptable, the Secretary must abide by that decision as well, and therefore fail to issue a permit, lease, easement, or right-of-way that would allow the facility to be constructed on the proposed site.

The arrangement dictated by section 414 of this bill has precedence in the procedure for granting hydroelectric licenses under the Federal Power Act. This process requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to include in the terms and conditions of its licenses for hydroelectric licenses any conditions deemed necessary to protect the interests of other agencies. The United States Supreme Court determined that such conditions had to be ``reasonable'' and the reasonability of the conditions was a matter to be determined by the courts, not the Commission.

I support development of renewable sources of energy, but not at the expense of public safety or national security. The provisions included in section 414 of this bill ensure that the impacts of Cape Wind's potential development on the citizens of Massachusetts and the rest of the country will be evaluated fairly and appropriately by those who have the expertise to make a final determination on how best to mitigate any adverse effects. I urge my colleagues to act swiftly to pass the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that, on Monday, the House passed S. Con. Res. 103, though I am disappointed by the events that necessitated its consideration. Last September, when the House considered H.R. 889, the Coast Guard Authorization Act, I expressed my concern about a provision that would have altered the existing evaluation and approval process for the Cape Wind project, a 420 megawatt offshore wind farm proposed for Horseshoe Shoal off the coast of Massachusetts. That project is currently undergoing a thorough review process that is working with numerous federal and state agencies, as well as interested parties, to assess potential impacts to the environment, navigation and other areas of concern. When the House and Senate went to conference, I wrote to the head House conferees, explaining the strong support in Rhode Island for the project and cautioning about the potential negative ramifications of the provision on the growing wind energy industry, which will help diversify our Nation's energy supply by providing a clean and renewable source to millions of Americans.

Much to my dismay, during conference negotiations, a much broader restriction on the project was inserted--language that had not been considered by either the House or Senate--that would essentially circumvent the existing project by giving the Governor of Massachusetts veto power over this particular project. At a time when our Nation's economy is endangered by our dependence on foreign oil, we should be encouraging clean and renewable energy development, not blocking it. To protest this last-minute back-room conference deal, I joined the gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Bass, in leading an effort to ask the House leadership to prevent the consideration of any final agreement on the Coast Guard bill that contained language endangering the Cape Wind project in Massachusetts. I am pleased that widespread public opposition to the language forced it to be removed from the bill, and I will continue my efforts to promote the responsible development of clean and renewable energy in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 103) to correct the enrollment of the bill H.R. 889.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on Senate Concurrent Resolution 103.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Senate Concurrent Resolution 103 clarifies the intent of the conferees that the Coast Guard review and assess the impacts of any proposed offshore energy facility on the navigation safety in Nantucket Sound and on the service's capabilities to conduct missions within and near the proposed facility.

The resolution will require the Coast Guard to establish terms and conditions that are necessary to safeguard recreational and commercial vessel traffic in Nantucket Sound before any draft environmental impact statement is made available for public review.

The resolution also provides that these terms and conditions will be incorporated into the requirements of any lease that is granted for the construction of a proposed offshore facility.

This provision will allow us to develop offshore alternative energy resources in a way that does not jeopardize the safety and security of the maritime community in Nantucket Sound.

I urge my colleagues to support this concurrent resolution and to support the underlying resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time I yield whatever time he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution will make changes to the Coast Guard conference report that reflects the compromise agreement that was worked out concerning the Cape Wind project.

It will allow the Commandant of the Coast Guard to set the terms and conditions on any leasing of Federal waters in Nantucket Sound that may be necessary to protect navigational safety. For example, over 3 million passengers ride ferries that transit through Nantucket Sound, and it is vitally important to protect the navigational safety of those vessels.

Recent emergencies have reminded us once again why a well-funded and fully operational Coast Guard is paramount for protecting the citizens of this Nation.

The 2006 Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act conference report has been delayed for far too long. We are all glad to see that a fair agreement based on navigational safety has been worked out and that this bill will now move to the President's desk for signature.

I encourage all my colleagues to support this fair resolution and support full funding for the Coast Guard.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Alaska, the distinguished chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Young, I want to commend you and Mr. LoBiondo, the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, for having chaired the full committee and the Coast Guard subcommittee, along with your respective ranking members, Mr. Oberstar, the gentleman from Minnesota; and Mr. Filner, the gentleman from California. You all have done notable work.

Chairman Young, you and I have talked about this before, but I believe the U.S. Coast Guard probably more than any other Federal entity assumes additional duties time after time without corresponding increased appropriations. I told the Commandant the other day, Admiral Allen, I said, You must

have a magic wand down there, because you all continue to discharge duty after duty, oftentimes newly assigned duties, with the same amount of money. And I don't know how they do it, but they do.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.