    [Senate Hearing 114-390]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 114-390

                          MARINE DEBRIS AND WILDLIFE:
                        IMPACTS, SOURCES, AND SOLUTIONS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES,
                              WATER, AND WILDLIFE

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   ----------

                                  MAY 17, 2016

                                   ----------

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

      [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys

                                   -----------

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    22-168 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2016
    _____________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
                                 SECOND SESSION

                      JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
    DAVID VITTER, Louisiana              BARBARA BOXER, California
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    MIKE CRAPO, Idaho                    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama               JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska

                     Ryan Jackson, Majority Staff Director
                   Bettina Poirier, Democratic Staff Director
                                  ----------

                 Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife

                         DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama               BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex        BARBARA BOXER, California (ex
        officio)                             officio)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                  MAY 17, 2016
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Sullivan, Hon. Dan, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska........     1
    Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
      Island.........................................................     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Kurth, Hon. Jim, Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.     4
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Boozman.......    12
        Response to an additional question from Senator Whitehouse...    15
    Pallister, Chris, President and Co-Founder, Gulf of Alaska Keeper    26
        Prepared statement...........................................    29
    Jambeck, Jenna, Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering,
      University of Georgia..........................................    34
        Prepared statement...........................................    36
        Response to an additional question from Senator Whitehouse...    48
    Mallos, Nicholas, Director, Trash Free Seas Program, Ocean
      Conservancy....................................................    50
        Prepared statement...........................................    52
        Response to an additional question from Senator Whitehouse...   418
    Stone, Jonathan, Executive Director, Save the Bay................   419
        Prepared statement...........................................   421

          MARINE DEBRIS AND WILDLIFE: IMPACTS, SOURCES, AND SOLUTIONS

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2016

                                   U.S. Senate,
             Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:11 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Dan Sullivan
    (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Sullivan, Whitehouse, Boozman, Fischer,
    Rounds, Inhofe, Gillibrand, and Markey.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA

        Senator Sullivan. Good morning.
        Senator Inhofe. May I make a real quick statement?
        Senator Sullivan. Yes, sir.
        Senator Inhofe. I have floor time in 5 minutes, but I want
    to come back because I have a special interest in this first
    witness I've already talked about, so I will be right back.
        Senator Sullivan. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife will now
    come to order. The purpose of this hearing is to examine the
    impacts and sources of marine debris on wildlife population and
    potential solutions to this issue.
        I want to begin by apologizing for being late. A little bit
    of bad traffic out there. Appreciate the patience.
        More specifically, for coastal States, particularly those
    on the West Coast and East Coast, prevalence of marine debris
    on our shores is a chronic issue. Marine debris results from a
    number of manmade sources, including derelict fishing gear,
    poor solid waste management practices, major storm events, and
    everyday litter.
        In March 2011 a large earthquake struck off the Japanese
    coast, causing a large tsunami and tragically killing or
    displacing tens of thousands of people. While much of the media
    attention rightly focused on this tragic outcome and the
    related situation with the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant,
    another less reported story was also unraveling.
        The 2011 tsunami washed millions of tons of debris into the
    Pacific Ocean, most of which eventually made its way to the
    Pacific Northwest of the United States. In some of the most
    extreme examples, a 185-ton dock washed up on Washington's
    Olympic Coast, the U.S. Coast guard was forced to sink a
    floating ghost ship off the coast of Alaska before it struck
    the shore, and even a motorcycle was washed ashore in western
    Canada.
        Today my State of Alaska is still dealing with the impacts
    of this event, and one of our witnesses here today will discuss
    his organization's efforts and experiences while cleaning this
    significant debris. In addition to the organizations
    represented here today, there are others in Alaska conducting
    important response and research work, such as the Sitka Sound
    Science Center.
        NOAA has identified a number of hotspots where debris
    accumulate in large quantities due to ocean currents and other
    factors. Mostly in the Pacific, these so-called ``garbage
    patches'' have been known by scientists for years. Yet what is
    less known is the impacts of these debris on marine and land
    based birds, mammals, and other species and their ecosystems. I
    am hopeful that today's hearing will shed some additional light
    on these effects and identify research gaps. While the problem
    of marine debris is apparent there are also no clear answers on
    how to best solve it.
        The United States has taken major steps to address issues
    here at home, and the plastics industry has proactively pursued
    ways to address debris in the marine environment. In Alaska and
    other coastal States most debris comes from foreign sources, as
    evidenced by the volume of materials collected on our shores
    every year bearing labels written in Chinese, Russian,
    Indonesian and many other foreign languages.
        As a result of the tsunami, in 2012 the Japanese
    government--in a remarkable gesture given the enormous
    suffering Japan endured--gifted $5 million to the U.S.
    Government to assist in debris removal and response efforts.
    This one-time infusion of funds supplemented NOAA's modest
    annual congressional appropriation for the Marine Debris
    Program. The authorization for the Marine Debris Program has
    lapsed, but fortunately Congress has continued to fund this
    important work.
        But beyond funding response and clean up work, one of the
    things that we hope this Committee's experts will help us
    address is how can the United States help better encourage
    sanitation and management practices, particularly in developing
    countries, as it relates to ocean debris and what innovative
    ideas exist to solve these problems. These are some of the
    questions we hope will be answered today.
        I am pleased to have a distinguished and diverse panel of
    witnesses here this morning. I want to thank all of you for
    being here.
        Finally, I want to acknowledge and thank Ranking Member
    Whitehouse for his interest in this topic and his encouragement
    to hold this hearing. Although at first glance you might not
    see the similarities between Alaska and Rhode Island, being the
    largest and smallest States in the Union, respectively, we both
    love our oceans. In fact, Rhode Island is the Ocean State and
    Alaska has more ocean coastline than the rest of the United
    States combined, so this issue matters to all of us.
        With that, I will turn it over to Ranking Member
    Whitehouse.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We got away
    with being the Ocean State by being among the first 13, when
    there was less competition.
        Let me express first my appreciation to you for your
    interest and for this action on the problem of marine debris.
    As you say, Alaska and Rhode Island have many differences. But
    we share a common dependence on and affection for our healthy
    oceans.
        To put it mildly, this Committee does not always see eye to
    eye on the issues under our jurisdiction. But we are on the
    same page today. Some colleagues may try to argue that humans
    aren't causing climate change. But there is no denying man's
    role in the startling amount of plastic trash that now litters
    our oceans and coasts. The problem is pervasive and obvious.
        A Rhode Island example comes from one of the most dangerous
    and demanding sporting events on the planet, the Volvo Round of
    the World Ocean Race, which had a stop in Newport, Rhode
    Island, this past summer. The sailors on those racing vessels
    had seen the world, and they told of a littered ocean. So
    littered, in fact, that they had to make daily debris checks
    for marine debris fouling their keels and slowing down the
    racing boat, even in the far away South Atlantic waters.
        Ocean Conservancy reports that the 2014 International
    Coastal Cleanup took over 16 million pounds of trash from
    beaches around the world. Save the Bay, represented here today
    by Executive Director Jonathan Stone organizes Rhode Island's
    participation in the International Coastal Cleanup. Last
    September over 2,000 volunteers participated in beach clean ups
    in Rhode Island. They collected more than 19,000 pounds of
    trash from our beaches during the single day event, and that is
    just a small snapshot of the bigger problem.
        When plastic enters the water, it never really goes away. A
    study of seabirds found that in 2014, among 80 species studied,
    90 percent of individual birds had plastic in their bellies.
    This albatross is filled with discarded lighters and other
    plastic junk that it mistook for food.
        It is not just birds. Thirteen sperm whales beached
    themselves on the German coast in January with plastic in their
    stomachs, including a 43-foot long shrimp fishing net and a
    large piece of a plastic car engine cover. Leatherback turtles
    are found with stomachs full of plastic bags mistaken for the
    jelly fish on which they feed. Scientists have documented
    harmful plastic interactions in nearly 700 species.
        Marine debris does not have to be eaten to be a hazard.
    Turtles and porpoises and manatees drown or starve in
    entanglements, as do sharks, which must move to breathe.
        Through wave action and UV exposure under the sun, plastics
    continually break down into smaller and smaller pieces. The
    smallest pieces, microplastics, are ingested by a wider swath
    of the food chain, mixing in with plankton blooms and other
    elemental food sources. Plastic is now found in every corner of
    the marine environment, from sandy beaches on rumwood islands,
    to arctic ice cores, to deep sea sediments, to ocean gyres in
    the faraway Pacific.
        Dr. Jenna Jambeck, who is testifying today, found that 80
    percent of the plastic in the ocean originates from land. Each
    year, an estimated 8 million metric tons of plastic waste
    enters the oceans. At present rates, the mass of waste plastic
    in the ocean will outweigh the mass of all the living fish in
    the ocean by the middle of this century. Let me say that again.
    At present rates, the mass of waste plastic in the ocean will
    outweigh the mass of all the living fish in the ocean by the
    middle of this century.
        Over 50 percent of the plastic waste in the oceans comes
    from just five countries: China, Indonesia, the Philippines,
    Vietnam, and Sri Lanka. Their upland waste management systems
    are a failure, so plastic and other trash makes its inevitable
    way to the sea.
        Senator Sullivan and I are both members of the Senate
    Oceans Caucus. Our bipartisan caucus has made marine debris a
    priority issue, and we are determined to make progress. Perhaps
    the present rethinking of the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement
    will give us a chance to encourage the filthy five marine
    debris countries to clean up their act.
        Thank you again, Chairman, for calling this hearing, and I
    appreciate very much the wonderful panel of witnesses who have
    come here today.
        Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
        Now I would like to welcome the first witness to our panel,
    Mr. Jim Kurth, the Deputy Director, United States Fish and
    Wildlife Service. You will have 5 minutes to deliver your
    opening statement, and a longer written statement will be
    included in the record.
        Mr. Kurth.

             STATEMENT OF HON. JIM KURTH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
                     U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

        Mr. Kurth. Good morning, Chairman Sullivan and Ranking
    Member Whitehouse and Subcommittee members. I appreciate the
    opportunity to testify today, and I would note I have had the
    good fortune to live and work for the Fish and Wildlife Service
    in both Rhode Island and Alaska.
        Senator Whitehouse. Rhode Island was more fun, right?
        Mr. Kurth. I am not going to pass judgment.
        Senator Sullivan. I was going to avoid asking you that
    question because I thought it might embarrass my colleague
    here.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Kurth. They are both wonderful places.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Sullivan. Good answer.
        Mr. Kurth. Marine debris ranging from abandoned vessels to
    fishing gear, plastic bags, balloons, food wrappers, and many
    other consumer products is a pervasive threat to the world's
    oceans. It injures and kills wildlife, degrades habitats,
    interferes with navigation, and costs communities, fishing and
    maritime industries millions of dollars annually. In addition
    microplastics created by the breakdown of bottles, bags, and
    other larger debris, as well as the toxic chemicals they
    contain, pose a risk to human health as they accumulate in the
    marine food web.
        Up to 80 percent of marine debris originates on land: the
    litter sucked into storm drains or blown into waterways, to
    stray garbage from landfills, and small particles discharged
    from industrial operations. It injures and kills wildlife for
    many miles inland on its journal to the ocean.
        Other debris is generated at sea from lost fishing
    equipment and vessels, cargo containers swept overboard and
    illegal dumping. Large storms and tsunamis can also deposit
    enormous amounts of debris into coastal areas and deeper
    waters.
        At Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge in New
    Jersey, a storm surge from Hurricane Sandy in 2012 scattered
    tons of debris over a 22-mile stretch of beaches, salt marshes,
    and forested areas. It took months to remove the debris, which
    included downed trees, construction materials, appliances,
    glass, trash, and over 175 boats from nearby marinas, many of
    which leaked fuel and other contaminants. More debris was swept
    out to sea when storm surges receded.
        As a former wildlife refuge manager I have seen the impacts
    of marine debris. It is heartbreaking to see a sea turtle dead
    from ingesting a plastic bag it thought was a jelly fish, or to
    find a dead albatross chick with her stomach filled with
    plastics.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service works through its coastal
    refuges and friends groups to mobilize local communities for
    the International Coastal Cleanup each September, an event that
    helps raise public awareness while removing significant amounts
    of debris.
        Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge provides nesting
    habitat for nearly 3 million seabirds, including endangered
    Laysan ducks, albatross, and 19 other seabird species. Hawaiian
    monk seals, green sea turtles, and spinner dolphins frequent
    Midway's coral lagoons.
        The island memorializes one of our Nation's most important
    naval victories. Unfortunately, albatross and other seabirds
    gathering food for their chicks carry over 5 tons of plastic
    back to Midway each year. The stomachs of nearly all the dead
    chicks we see on Midway contain plastics, including cigarette
    lighters, parts of toys, fishing gear fed to them by their
    parents.
        We partner with NOAA and the Coast Guard to remove between
    5 and 10 tons of debris at Midway and the Northwest Hawaiian
    Islands annually. We have removed nearly 1 million pounds of
    shipwrecks at Palmyra Atoll and Kingman Reef National Wildlife
    Refuges. The iron from these wrecks was fueling the growth of
    invasive organisms, smothering some of the Islands' pristine
    coral reefs. With the shipwrecks gone now, these reefs are
    beginning to recover.
        The 3.4 million acres of the Alaska Maritime National
    Wildlife Refuge provide essential habitat for some 40 million
    seabirds, over 30 species. We have engaged with Pribilof
    Islanders to work with fishermen to remove nets and other
    debris from fur seal rookeries, and we supported clean up
    efforts in the Aleutians, along the Alaska Peninsula, and in
    the Gulf of Alaska.
        At Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge a Youth Conservation
    Corps crew pulled more than 15,000 pounds of debris off the
    beaches of Halibut Bay a few summers ago. Efforts like these
    are important, but they are a short-term fix. These beaches and
    hundreds of miles of other beaches, marshes, and other coastal
    habitats nationwide start accumulating debris again at the next
    high tide. We focus on public education because we don't have
    the staff or resources to regularly patrol and clean up most
    areas.
        This brings me to my main point: The scale and complexity
    of this problem outstrips the ability of any agency or nation
    to address alone. Stopping debris at the source is vital, and
    we can't do that unless we work with public and private
    partners at a local scale with a global focus.
        Through the Federal Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating
    Committee we are working to implement a government-wide
    comprehensive approach focused on source prevention. The future
    of marine wildlife depends on our success.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to
    working with you in the future to address this issue.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kurth follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Sullivan. Thank you for that opening statement. I
    appreciate the fact that both in your remarks and Senator
    Whitehouse's remarks you emphasize the importance of volunteer
    communities throughout the country, really, that are focused on
    that.
        Let me start my questions by asking about the role of the
    Fish and Wildlife Service. Again, I want to thank the Commerce
    Committee, of which I am a member, which oversees NOAA and
    Oceans, and I appreciate Chairman Thune and Ranking Member
    Nelson for being flexible to allow us to hold this hearing
    here.
        As you know, Mr. Kurth, NOAA is the Federal agency that is
    primarily responsible for being focused on oceans, but many of
    the species that are managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service
    are negatively impacted by marine debris.
        What authorities or additional things can your agency do
    with Congress's help to better allow the Service to respond to
    this issue, of course keeping in close coordination with NOAA?
        Mr. Kurth. Mr. Chairman, we rely on an essential
    partnership with NOAA to address these resources. The area
    where we perhaps have the most interest is in our ocean and
    national wildlife refuges and marine monuments. One of the
    authorities we lack, that NOAA has and the National Park
    Service has, is to recover damages when national wildlife
    refuges are injured.
        For example, I mentioned the ship wrecks at Palmyra Atoll.
    Now, while those wrecks occurred prior to becoming a refuge, so
    the case isn't precisely the same, had that happened today we
    have no authority to recover civil damages for the effects of
    that shipwreck on the reef.
        In the President's budget request he transmitted a proposal
    called the Refuge Resource Protection Act that would give us
    precisely the same authority that our sister agencies have to
    recover damages from third parties when we are injured by them.
    That is an important authority that we are lacking.
        But once again, this is an important partnership that we
    can't do on our own without NOAA and the help of the Coast
    Guard and others.
        Senator Sullivan. Let me ask a related question. You
    mentioned that Fish and Wildlife Service is a member of the
    Interagency Committee on Marine Debris. Can you explain to us a
    little bit more of the work of the Committee and whether you
    think it is an effective venue for coordinating the broader
    Federal Government's response to these issues?
        Mr. Kurth. I am not an expert on that Committee, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Sullivan. Have you been to any of the meetings or
    anything?
        Mr. Kurth. No. I am not a member of that Committee.
        Senator Sullivan. But Fish and Wildlife is a member?
        Mr. Kurth. Yes. And it is reflective--in my statement I
    mentioned that none of us can handle this alone; it requires
    all of the people with an interest in ocean and all the
    landowning agencies, the regulatory agencies that have tools to
    bring to the table to work together, and I think that is the
    focus of this Committee is it is not a problem that anybody
    alone can solve, and we have to bring all of the tools that we
    have in the toolbox together.
        Senator Sullivan. Let me ask a question on the science. Do
    you think that the Federal Government and the scientific
    community have a sense of the impact of marine debris ingestion
    on wildlife and the broader food chain? Some of the statistics
    that Senator Whitehouse just mentioned in terms of how much is
    ingested is really stunning.
        Do you think we have a good understanding of that from a
    scientific community? And what steps should the Service be
    taking to broader the understanding, particularly to science,
    of these issues?
        Mr. Kurth. I think that we know a great deal, but I also
    believe that the ocean is our last unexplored part of our
    planet, that there is so much about the ocean environment that
    we have yet to learn. The Service works in partnership with
    others.
        For example, at Palmyra Refuge we have the Palmyra Research
    Consortium that includes NOAA, many of our major oceanographic
    research institutes to look at those core reef ecosystems in
    the nearby ocean waters to learn about how the ocean is
    changing and the effects of a changing world on the ocean
    environment there. There is a great deal that still is to be
    learned about the ocean and this topic.
        Senator Sullivan. And finally, I think this will be a topic
    for the next panel as well, but as I mentioned in my opening
    statement of course we can always do a better job on this as a
    country. But a lot of the debris, as Senator Whitehouse
    mentioned, comes from other countries. What are your
    recommendations that we can do working with other countries on
    this topic? Literally, my State is the recipient of their
    pollution, and I think there has to be a deeper way in which we
    can address this with these other nations because it certainly
    seems like a core element of the problem.
        Mr. Kurth. Well, I think you are right, perhaps this next
    panel will know more. I think we need to be engaged with the
    world because so much of this is about education. I think that
    in the developing world they don't necessarily have any idea
    what happens to the plastics and other debris that goes into
    the rivers and out into the ocean. There are limited resources
    in many of those places, but it is going to take a concerted
    effort of research, of education, engagement, and then the
    development of technologies that can more effectively deal with
    this.
        Senator Sullivan. Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thanks, Chairman.
        Thanks, Mr. Kurth, for being here. You mentioned the
    albatross, and I don't want to anthropomorphize too much, but
    when you think how far the mother albatross has to travel in
    order to collect food to feed the chicks, I think that they
    have been banded and tracked, and they have thousands of miles
    that they travel. They skim the surface of the ocean looking
    for food, and a lighter looks a fair amount like a squid to
    them, so they come back to where the chicks are and regurgitate
    up what they have picked up.
        That is how you get these pictures of the little albatross
    chicks starving to death with stomachs full of plastic. And
    sometimes it helps, I guess, when there is an image like that
    in people's mind to trigger their sympathies.
        But I think it is also important that we understand the
    scale of this problem as well, and I wanted to ask you, within
    Fish and Wildlife which are the programs that engage the most
    with the marine debris problem, and how engaged are they from a
    budget point of view? And if that is too complicated a question
    to answer right in our next few minutes, could you make that a
    question for the record? Just give me a little layout.
        Mr. Kurth. Sure. It is a complicated question. Certainly,
    our national wildlife refuges, our migratory bird program, our
    marine mammal program all have interest in this topic. And you
    are exactly right, these species range quite far.
        I had the good fortune a couple of summers ago to be on our
    research vessel TECLA in the Aleutian Islands. They were
    feeding albatross there. I asked our crew, where are those
    birds coming from, and they said Midway Atoll. And I said,
    there is no way. I said, that is over 1,000 miles away. And the
    response was that is the closest land, it is the closest
    nesting site.
        So those birds use an enormous area of ocean water, and it
    is remarkable how they find things like a cigarette lighter. It
    is amazing how many cigarette lighters there are in the ocean,
    and it is heartbreaking.
        But whether it is the albatross or petrels or sea lions or
    other things, turtles, the impact from marine debris is part
    and parcel to what all of us in Fish and Wildlife Service care
    about. I would be happy to expand on that in the record.
        Senator Whitehouse. And we see these pictures of the dead
    baby albatrosses with their stomachs filled with lighters and
    other trash, and we see the pictures of marine mammals that are
    entangled in netting or other things and have drowned or
    starved. But it is harder to see the microplastic as it breaks
    down and gets to the level of almost molecular plastic. Could
    you talk a little bit about what Fish and Wildlife is doing to
    look at the effects of that as it enters the food chain?
        Mr. Kurth. More of the science that would be done by that
    by the Government would be done by NOAA. As the Chairman
    mentioned they really are the principal ocean research agency.
    We are more focused on our marine national monuments and
    refuges and on the species that we have jurisdiction for.
        Senator Whitehouse. Are you seeing any uptake through that?
        Mr. Kurth. The literature clearly indicates that, and I
    think your next panel will have some experts that can give you
    more information, and I can supplement for the record with some
    of the additional things that the Service is concerned about.
        Senator Whitehouse. And the vast majority of vessels that
    might dump or wreck on marine areas that you protect are
    insured, so to ask them to pay their price for what they have
    done, I gather you are the only Federal agency with
    responsibility for Federal property that doesn't have the right
    to sue for civil damages when people harm your resource?
        Mr. Kurth. Well, I can't say we are the only one, I
    wouldn't know.
        Senator Whitehouse. Compared to the Park Service.
        Mr. Kurth. Yes, the Park Service has it, NOAA has it, the
    Bureau of Land Management has these authorities.
        Senator Whitehouse. Yes.
        Mr. Kurth. And it just seems reasonable in these difficult
    financial times, when we don't have enough resources to do
    things, that if somebody damages the property of the United
    States they would be liable to pay for those damages. We just
    simply don't have that statutory authority in the national
    wildlife refuge system.
        Senator Whitehouse. Well, if you could summarize for me as
    a question for the record what the most significant ways are
    that your organization engages with the marine debris problem
    and how much budget connects to that, and also other than this
    recommendation for the authority to pursue civil damages, what
    your top five recommendations for the Committee would be.
        Mr. Kurth. I would be happy to do that, Senator.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thanks, Mr. Kurth. I appreciate it.
        Senator Sullivan. Senator Boozman.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you
    for holding a really very important hearing. I am from a
    landlocked State in regard to oceans but certainly understand
    the importance and the economies of many States. Tourism is
    built on people from Arkansas going to the ocean.
        But I want to follow up a little bit on the Marine Debris
    Coordinating Committee. You mentioned that you hadn't really
    attended the meetings.
        Mr. Kurth. Generally, the Committee is attended by the
    people who are more focused on that topic. Unfortunately, I am
    in more of an administrative role.
        Senator Boozman. I understand.
        Mr. Kurth. And I am not the expert that I used to be.
        Senator Boozman. But you all are active?
        Mr. Kurth. Yes.
        Senator Boozman. Good. Is that a good vehicle? Is it an
    area that we as a Committee should press?
        Mr. Kurth. It is essential in this day and age that
    Government agencies collaborate and we don't duplicate. None of
    us have the resources to do it all by ourselves, so any
    mechanism that allows us to share science, to inform each other
    of our work activities, to get synergies out of our agencies'
    mission is an important thing.
        Senator Boozman. As I saw the pictures and things, Senator
    Carper and I are co-chairs of the Recycling Caucus, and
    recycling plastic can result in energy savings up to 87 percent
    and keep the plastic out of the ocean. So it really does
    highlight some of the efforts that we are trying to make there,
    to do that.
        Also, that is perhaps something that we can help some of
    our overseas entities that aren't doing as good a job to
    collaborate and show them how they cannot only clean the oceans
    up, but also it is good for them, good for their economy.
        Mr. Kurth. Absolutely. I think the United States has long
    led in the development of cost effective technologies for
    recycling, and to the extent that we can export those to the
    developing world it will certainly help in this regard.
        Senator Boozman. Very good.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Senator Boozman.
        I had a few other follow up questions, and I know Senator
    Inhofe was interested in following up with some questions as
    well.
        But let me go back to an issue that I don't think is
    uniquely Alaskan, but we certainly have a big challenge with
    it, and that is the instance where owners of abandoned and
    derelict vessels are on the shores of different States.
    Certainly in Alaska there are a lot of these; they are unable
    to be identified, so nobody is able to be held accountable for
    their recovery.
        In this kind of instance, which we have a number of these,
    do you have any ideas of what can be done to clean up this kind
    of debris? It is not necessarily the debris that is getting
    into the digestive systems of animals, but it is still a
    significant problem, and it is a big problem in Alaska.
        Mr. Kurth. I wish I did have an answer, Senator. When I
    worked in Alaska we had a derelict vessel offshore of the
    Arctic Refuge where I worked, and it had been there for
    decades. No one quite really knew what to do about that. I
    think it is something that we are going to all have to come
    together and find out; when there is not a responsible party
    how do we work together with the affected States and with
    government agencies that have authority, because it is a
    problem that doesn't have a ready answer, at least to my
    knowledge.
        Senator Sullivan. So there is always the issue of, well, we
    can just fund clean up on that, and of course that is one way
    to look at it. As you know, all agencies' budgets are kind of
    stretched.
        The one area that I have thought about on this topic that
    seems to have some potential is that there are so many
    motivated volunteers to help with the clean up. Are there
    authorities or ways in which we can encourage that to make sure
    that they are encouraged or kind of a Good Samaritan kind of
    situation in terms of the law, where if someone is going out,
    trying to do good work, if something happens, that they are not
    going to be held liable for any mistakes? Are there things that
    we can be doing, more innovative, more--as you mentioned--
    public-private partnerships that we can do in this regard that
    can help an issue like that that is not just about, you know,
    more funding?
        Mr. Kurth. Volunteers are at the heart of how we have been
    able to do most of the clean up activity where there is not a
    responsible party. I think that we have the authority and the
    Fish and Wildlife Service has over 40,000 volunteers. On our
    national wildlife refuges, they accomplish approximately 20
    percent of all the work that gets done in the national wildlife
    refuge system. And Congress several years ago did pass the
    Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act that gave
    us authority to hire volunteer coordinators.
        But you are right, the effects of budget cuts have hurt.
    Over the last few years we saw our volunteer numbers go down
    because we have lost the capacity and some of these
    coordinators to do it. It is one of the most cost effective
    investments that we can make, is to make sure we have people
    that can coordinate volunteer work and use it as a force
    multiplier for the limited staff we have. We have partnerships
    with volunteers and community groups in almost every aspect of
    what we do on the Service.
        Senator Sullivan. Let me ask one final question on the
    foreign country issue. What programs does Fish and Wildlife
    Service have currently where you engage with other countries,
    particularly some of the countries that Senator Whitehouse
    noted in his remarks?
        Mr. Kurth. We have a very robust international conservation
    program, but it is focused more on the trust species we have
    and then on illegal wildlife trade. We work a great deal in
    Africa interdicting trade in elephant ivory and rhinos. We work
    with people that are illegally taking sea turtles and entering
    them into interstate commerce, with migratory birds.
        But many of those countries in the developing world, the
    marine debris issue has not been the focus of our work. We work
    closely with China on any number of things, on wetland
    conservation, giving them technical assistance on rivers and
    protected areas, but the management of solid waste onshore
    really isn't the mainstay of the Fish and Wildlife Service's
    expertise.
        Senator Sullivan. OK. Thank you.
        Senator Gillibrand.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am sure you are aware of the problems that Long Island
    and New York City face in terms of managing their solid waste
    and preventing contamination into our waterways. When Hurricane
    Sandy hit we faced flooding and contamination on a scale that
    we have never seen before in our area.
        What can all of us learn from that situation, and how can
    we improve our resiliency so the consequences of a natural
    disaster are not solid waste garbage contaminants floating in
    our waters? What have you found to have been successful?
        Mr. Kurth. I think that when we look at coastal resiliency
    we have to balance how we harden infrastructure and how we
    utilize green infrastructure. We saw in many of the coastal
    areas that we manage--I mentioned Forsythe Refuge in New
    Jersey, where those coastal wetlands and the green
    infrastructure helps to attenuate storm surge and builds
    resilience in the ecosystems. The wetlands in Delaware at Prime
    Hook Refuge are another example.
        So there is certainly in places like New York City hardened
    infrastructure as part of the equation, but where we can have
    more natural coastal features, those dunes, those coastal
    wetlands, they attenuate the effects of storm surges. It is not
    a solution everywhere, but we have been very fortunate to have
    significant funding after Hurricane Sandy to build resilience
    back into some of the coastal environments that we managed, and
    we think that is one component of an effective strategy for
    coastal resilience.
        Senator Gillibrand. An unrelated question, but I know that
    you are an expert on this. I wanted to get your views on an
    important decision that the State of New York is having right
    now with regard to Plum Island. Many of my constituents on Long
    Island and I support the idea of turning it into a wildlife
    refuge in order to conserve this piece of land for future
    generations. With your extensive background with the refuge
    system, can you speak to the value and benefits of creating a
    refuge on a location such as Plum Island?
        Mr. Kurth. We are a cooperating agency in the environmental
    impact statement that is looking at that. As you know, there is
    a lot of infrastructure and potential contamination at Plum
    Island, so we are encouraged to continue to working with folks.
    But the Service is always cautious if we bring a unit into the
    refuge system that issues that might relate to physical
    infrastructure that is remaining or contaminants are addressed
    before it would be appropriate to be a refuge. So we continue
    to be engaged in and work on that study looking at the options
    for how we can repurpose that and include conservation as a
    purpose for Plum Island.
        Senator Gillibrand. Another area I am interested in--I
    don't know if you have expertise in, but one of the concerns
    about marine pollutants is that plastics are broken down into
    microplastics, produce pollutants in the environment, and often
    animals digest these toxic plastic pieces unknowingly and make
    them sick and develop other issues. We had this issue with
    microbeads, and we were successfully able in Congress to ban
    them because it had so many horrible effects for killing fish
    in a lot of our rivers and water bodies.
        So how can these plastic and toxic pollutants affect the
    health of marine life and the food chain that rely on them,
    ultimately affecting humans?
        Mr. Kurth. Well, it is just not those microbeads, but it is
    also the deterioration of other plastics as they break down
    that are ingested, and they accumulate in the marine food
    chain. And you are right; I confessed earlier that I am not an
    expert on those subjects, and I think you have some folks
    following me on the next panel that maybe can get more into the
    deeper science of it.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Sullivan. Senator Markey.
        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    holding this hearing.
        Can you talk a little bit about ghost fishing and the
    effect from the fishing industry and what the steps are that
    can be taken to reduce the likelihood of derelict fishing gear?
        Mr. Kurth. Yes. Ghost fishing is a term that is used for
    the take of fish or shellfish after fishing equipment is either
    abandoned intentionally or somehow gets washed overboard, and
    it is very significant. I think that it is localized, so for me
    to quantify it for you would be geographic specific and perhaps
    more than I can do. But whether it is lobster traps or crab
    traps or fishing nets, it continues to fish 24/7 for years and
    years on, and the amount of marine life that it takes from the
    sea is very significant.
        Senator Markey. OK. And how does that ultimately, then,
    affect the fishing industry from your perspective?
        Mr. Kurth. Well, every fish or shellfish that is caught by
    derelict fishing equipment is a fish that isn't caught and the
    profit not returned to a commercial fisherman as part of the
    allowable catch for those. So it is a significant resource that
    is basically being wasted, where there is no return for the
    fisherman. It is simply a waste of a resource.
        I think it is a great example of a type of marine debris
    that doesn't pop into people's mind. They think of the sea
    turtle with the six-pack or the plastic bag they have ingested,
    or the cigarette lighter in the albatross, and they don't think
    about these derelict fishing gear out there continuing to take
    and waste shellfish and fish for years and years.
        Senator Markey. OK. A few years ago watermen in the
    Chesapeake Bay region were paid to clean up derelict crab pots.
    Is there an opportunity to engage the fishing industry in
    cleaning up debris to improve the health of fisheries which
    they depend upon?
        Mr. Kurth. Well, absolutely. I think watermen in Chesapeake
    Bay and people that fish for a living throughout the country
    oftentimes are amongst the most knowledgeable people about
    those marine ecosystems. Obviously there is a cost to that, and
    it is something that I think that we need to look to find
    effective partnerships. I think some of the people that will
    follow me will talk about how some of the various organizations
    out there are at the heart of some of those partnerships, and
    certainly government agencies can help facilitate that as well.
        Senator Markey. In your testimony you discuss successful
    marine debris educational outreach programs. Could you describe
    what one of those programs might look like?
        Mr. Kurth. I love the example I used earlier of the
    Pribilof Islands because it is this remote place with people
    whose whole life and tradition is tied to the sea, and they
    know and they are responsible for, and with a little
    facilitation and explanation, go out there and get the derelict
    fishing nets out of those fur seal rookeries. Some of the most
    important fur seal places in the world.
        That is one end of the spectrum, and we can go right to
    Rhode Island Beach, where we get school kids out there helping,
    perhaps not removing tons of things, our YCC crew in Kodiak.
    Maybe 15,000 isn't going to change the world, but they learn
    about the issue; they become engaged conservationists. They
    care, and they can help spread that message of prevention and
    reuse and recycle to others in their communities.
        Senator Markey. So thank you for helping to focus us upon
    these issues. We are just now at the fifth anniversary of the
    disaster which the tsunami caused at Fukushima and the amount
    of manmade debris that went into the ocean and traveled 4,000
    miles, still traveling. So your ability to help us to focus
    upon this rising phenomenon of manmade debris in the ocean is
    just so important, so we thank you for that.
        Mr. Kurth. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Markey. Appreciate it. Thank you.
        Senator Sullivan. Chairman Inhofe.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Director Kurth, as I mentioned to you earlier I have one
    major interest in this area. For 20 years I was a builder and
    developer in an area called South Padre Island, Texas. There
    are some areas other than the East Coast and Alaska that have
    beaches. It is unique with its ridley sea turtle. There are
    only a few places in the world where they come in, and they
    actually lay their eggs to go back and come out, and then the
    little critters get out, and they have to try to make their way
    out.
        Now, one is north of Vera Cruz; one is just a little bit
    north of South Padre Island. That's an incorporated town. The
    island--you are familiar with it, others may not be--is
    actually 140 miles long and four blocks wide, so you can only
    build on the southern tip of it. But there is one area just
    north of that where they do come in. Nobody knows why. And just
    like north of Vera Cruz. Well, there is a lot of value, of
    course, to two sources there. One is to get the mother when she
    comes in to lay her eggs, because they can predict pretty much
    when it is, and then get the little ones going back out.
        There is a lady whose name is Ila Loetscher. She was the
    Turtle Lady, referred to as the Turtle Lady, and about 40 years
    ago I would work with her. I would actually go down and sit out
    all night long. We would rotate around on watches to keep
    people from getting them as they are coming in, the value of
    the leather and all that. And she lived to be 100 years old,
    and she was active. Now I think it is her granddaughter down
    there is doing the same thing.
        Anyway, I am kind of hooked into that thing, and I am
    concerned because this has a direct effect. Now, what I would
    like for you to do is say what are things that we can do. This
    is protect and there is a lot of interest in there, but also
    there is a lot of damage that is done not just by the predators
    that are waiting to get them, but by debris and things like
    that.
        I was down there about 3 weeks ago, and they had one tub
    that had a turtle that did survive. It had ingested a plastic
    bag, I guess it was, and I know this is just a handful. There
    have been a lot of issues, turtle excluders on fishing boats
    and all that. But what do you know about that particular
    species, and what we can do, and what you can do to be of help
    in that protection?
        Mr. Kurth. Well, Senator, there is nothing that causes me
    greater fear than to think that a U.S. Senator may know more
    about this than I do. No, I think that the Kemp's ridley sea
    turtle is one of a number of turtles that do nest along the
    Gulf of Mexico. You are exactly right to be fascinated about
    why these creatures pick certain spots. I am happy that there
    are still some things that science doesn't really understand.
    It will give a new generation the opportunity to learn and
    explore the oceans in ways that we haven't quite figured out
    yet.
        But to protect, there are so many aspects of that. One is
    to have secure habitat; the other is to make sure that there is
    not too much disturbance, whether that is from predators or
    from inconsiderate people. I was a Federal wildlife officer for
    the better part of a dozen years and remember patrolling
    beaches in Florida and seeing teenagers flip sea turtles upside
    down, which is a death knell, and that is just ignorance. That
    is something that education has to go to.
        There are other things that we don't think about. Sea
    turtles, when they hatch, they are going to go to the water.
    But if there are lights around, they are drawn to that. So we
    have worked with resorts and restaurants on beaches to have
    different kinds of lights, different kinds of direction, or
    turn the lights off during that time of year when sea turtles
    are hatching. There are just all these different facets that go
    into the protection of that creature.
        The great thing about sea turtles is I have never met
    anybody who doesn't like them and isn't fascinated. If you sit
    on a beach and see one of those creatures crawling out of the
    ocean in the middle of the night, and going up there and
    digging its nest and laying eggs, it makes you think there is a
    whole bunch about this world that maybe we don't fully
    understand.
        Senator Inhofe. And particularly those critters, because
    they teach them to clap, and they show and demonstrate
    affection. I mean, this is pretty amazing.
        I wonder if a good third option there would be really
    education so people know about this. If enough people do then
    they would make their own force. That is what happened down
    there in that particular isolated area. They became very
    sacred. But again you have the kids turning them upside down
    who don't know any better.
        Mr. Kurth. And there are things that go along with
    communities caring. Just learning simple things about how to
    secure your garbage. Senator Sullivan has it with bears in
    Alaska. You secure your garbage; otherwise, you are going to
    have them around. And we don't need more raccoons around turtle
    nesting beaches because they are pretty efficient nest
    predators, so we just need to do more so communities understand
    the resources they have on their beach. And that is one of the
    few things it is not hard to get people to care about, and they
    will work with us once they understand the simple things that
    they can do to make a difference.
        Senator Inhofe. And there are so few areas where they
    habitat.
        Mr. Kurth. Yes.
        Senator Inhofe. Well, anyway, thank you.
        Mr. Kurth. Well, I appreciate your interest, Senator.
        Senator Sullivan. Well, thank you, Dr. Kurth, for your
    excellent testimony.
        I am going to ask the second panel to come to the dais.
        Mr. Kurth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Sullivan. I am going to welcome Mr. Chris
    Pallister, who is the President and Co-Founder of Gulf of
    Alaska Keeper; Dr. Jenna Jambeck, who is Associate Professor of
    Environmental Engineering at the University of Georgia; Mr.
    Nick Mallos, who is the Director of Trash Free Seas Program at
    the Ocean Conservancy; and Mr. Jonathan Stone, who is the
    Executive Director of Save the Bay.
        You will each have 5 minutes to deliver your oral
    statement, and a longer written statement, if you wish, will be
    included in the record of this hearing.
        Mr. Pallister, we will begin with you. You have 5 minutes
    to deliver your statement.

                STATEMENT OF CHRIS PALLISTER, PRESIDENT
                 AND CO-FOUNDER, GULF OF ALASKA KEEPER

        Mr. Pallister. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    Committee, for inviting Gulf of Alaska Keeper to participate in
    this important discussion.
        GoAK members started large scale marine debris clean ups in
    2002. In 2006 we organized as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit to tackle
    the marine debris problem in the Gulf of Alaska. Over 9 years
    Gulf of Alaska crews removed 1.5 million pounds of plastic
    debris from 1,500 miles of relatively protected Gulf of Alaska
    shorelines.
        In the past 3 years GoAK's efforts have focused on the more
    remote and rugged outer coasts where debris densities range
    between 10 and 30 tons of plastic debris per mile. In 2015 GoAK
    and partners collected an additional 1 million pounds of
    plastic from approximately 50 miles of that shoreline. Clean up
    costs on these remote beaches can surpass $100,000 per mile.
    Thousands of miles remain to be cleaned.
        GoAK's marine debris work has received significant support
    from Federal and State agencies and the Government of Japan.
    There is no long-term dedicated funding. Consequently, clean up
    projects cannot be properly planned. GoAK is the most active
    Alaskan marine debris clean up organization and the only one
    whose primary focus is on marine debris remediation and
    removal. GoAK also conducted an extensive marine debris
    monitoring program, and with the College of William & Mary and
    the University of Alaska, researches the biological impacts on
    marine wildlife caused by noxious chemicals leaching from
    plastic marine debris.
        An astounding amount of marine debris covers the Alaska
    Coast. Countless shipwrecks, immense quantities of creosote
    treated piling and power poles, loads of treated lumber,
    massive metal fuel tanks and steel drums litter the shoreline.
    However, the most insidious debris is the vast quantity of
    plastic that blankets large swaths of the Gulf of Alaska coast.
    In a triage forced by limited resources GoAK focuses on plastic
    debris removal.
        Plastic marine debris has several main sources. Over 50
    percent of the plastic debris by weight on Gulf of Alaska
    beaches is derelict fishing debris such as lines, nets, fish
    totes, plastic pallets, crates, baskets, pot gear, buoys, and
    among the deadliest of all, packing bands. Consumer products
    ranging from tiny plastic cosmetic beads to large appliances
    vastly outnumber all other plastic debris.
        Natural disasters such as floods, typhoons, and tsunamis
    inject millions of tons of plastic debris in the western
    Pacific, much of which ends up on Alaska's shores. Polystyrene
    and polyurethane plastic foam are 30 to 40 percent of the
    debris by volume.
        Most foam debris is from structures destroyed by natural
    disasters, but a sizable component is from freezer holds of
    sunken fishing vessels, lost refrigerated shipping containers,
    cargo spills, aquaculture buoys, and deliberate dumping.
    Shipping container spills and shipwrecks add tons more hard
    plastic debris.
        Plastic marine pollution is one of the most significant
    environmental issues of our time. Wherever scientists search in
    the marine environment they find plastic debris or the chemical
    signature of plastic components. Plastic marine debris extends
    from the ocean floor to the surface. Every coastal shoreline
    has a fringe of plastic debris from sub-micron particles to
    giant blocks of polyurethane or styrene foam.
        Monstrous pools of plastic debris circle in giant mid-ocean
    gyres, spewing out shore bound debris when disturbed by storms.
    Nearly all marine organisms tested by scientists contain
    plastic particles or carry a biological load of harmful plastic
    chemicals. From the tiniest plankton to the greatest whales
    plastic marine debris is exacting a largely unrecognized but
    terrible environmental toll.
        As scientists increasingly link the ingestion of plastic
    chemicals with harmful health impacts, plastic debris
    potentially threatens the viability of commercial fisheries.
    Consumption of plastic tainted seafood and subsistence
    resources such as contaminated seabirds and their eggs
    threatens human health. Alaska's fisheries, among the world's
    most productive, will likely suffer devastating environmental
    and economic blows from plastic debris unless there is a
    change.
        While the entire marine environment suffers from this
    manmade catastrophe, the Gulf of Alaska's rich coastal
    ecosystem has been hurt much more than most. China, Thailand,
    the Philippines, Vietnam, and Indonesia are the five countries
    responsible for the greatest contribution to the marine debris
    problem. All these countries fringe the South China Sea or abut
    the Western Pacific and are the countries that buy most of our
    cheap plastic goods.
        Due to an unfortunate confluence of currents, storms and
    geography the Gulf of Alaska's expansive coast receives a
    massive amount of discarded plastic debris from these
    countries. However, while these countries and natural disasters
    are responsible for approximately 90 percent of the consumer
    plastic debris by volume on Alaska's beaches, remember that
    commercial fishing is responsible for at least 50 percent of
    the weight of plastic marine debris on our coast.
        There are no rational options other than to confront the
    marine debris problem; it is an international issue and in the
    case of Alaska a problem that originates in foreign countries
    or from offshore fisheries largely controlled by foreign or
    Lower 48 fishing companies. Clearly MARPOL Annex V, the
    international treaty that bans plastic dumping on the ocean,
    must be strengthened and its prohibitions strongly enforced.
    There is virtually no enforcement now.
        The preventable sources of marine debris such as poor
    onshore waste management, intentional dumping, harmful
    commercial fishing practices, and reckless commercial shipping
    can be addressed through education and the imposition of taxes
    and fines to internalize the cost of removing derelict fishing
    gear or lost shipping cargo.
        However, marine debris will always be a problem because of
    natural disasters, container spills, and shipwrecks. Sustained
    support for aggressive industrial scale debris removal is
    critical. All Federal and State land management agencies with
    coastal habitat must include funding for maintenance clean ups
    in their annual budgets. They must not have the discretion to
    ignore this issue. Plastic debris cannot continue to pile upon
    coastal habitat. It is not inert; it will pollute and harm
    sensitive habitat and wildlife for generations.
        The Federal Government must take the lead by facilitating
    an international response and providing significant funding to
    remove debris that has already landed on our shores.
    Conservatively it will take at least $100 million to clean the
    most heavily impacted Alaskan shorelines. We recommend that
    additional Federal money for marine debris removal be directly
    granted to State agencies such as Alaska's Department of
    Environmental Conservation.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallister follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Pallister.
        Dr. Jambeck, you are next.

          STATEMENT OF JENNA JAMBECK, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF
            ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA

        Ms. Jambeck. Thank you, Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member
    Whitehouse. It is truly my honor to be here and my privilege.
        What has become evident as I have conducted my research,
    sailed across the ocean sampling plastic, and visited beaches
    where plastic is washing up onshore with every wave is that our
    plastic trash is everywhere. We have heard already you find it
    in the deep sea and the floating polar ice, from the open ocean
    gyres to our favorite beaches.
        So why do we care about plastic in the ocean? Well, as we
    have heard already, a lot of implications for wildlife. It
    entangles whales and seals, it fills the stomachs of our
    turtles and our albatrosses, and infects even the tiniest
    animals in our food web.
        Plastics also do not biodegrade, so we have heard they
    fragment. This is what you find on the beach, and it starts to
    degrade into smaller and smaller particles. This is what washes
    up on the shore on the beaches and some of the microplastic,
    and then this is what we pull out of the open ocean. It is
    about the size of a tip of a pen.
        So in order to respond to the scale of this problem we need
    to understand how much is going into the ocean and our aquatic
    systems each year. One source from the land is mismanaged
    waste, and that is made up of litter and inadequately managed
    waste. A portion of this plastic waste is then blown or washed
    into our waterways.
        So once plastic enters our ocean, it is not visible; it is
    70 percent of our planet so in some cases we don't see it; it
    looks pristine, even. But to understand the potential risk to
    our oceans we need to understand exposure and impact. Our
    research informed the exposure side of this equation, so how
    much plastic is entering the ocean every year. But it also made
    us ask where is all the plastic going.
        So in our last year publication in Science we estimated
    that 8 million metric tons of plastic entered the oceans in
    2010. This is equal to a volume of five grocery size bags
    filled with plastic for every foot of coastline in the world.
    So if we see business as usual, so in a projection scenario
    where we see increasing plastic consumption and population
    growth, we see this doubling by 2025, to 17 million metric tons
    and a cumulative input of 155 million metric tons.
        So getting the plastic out of the ocean once it is there
    has a lot of logistical and economic challenges, so knowing the
    quantities we are dealing with from waste and keeping it out in
    the first place is important. If you start to fill your
    bathtub, and you get distracted, and all of a sudden you run
    back into the bathroom and you see your tub overflowing onto
    the floor, what are you going to do? In some cases you might
    pick up something really quick if it is going to get wet, but
    in most cases you are going to turn off that faucet as soon as
    possible, and then you are going to address the clean up.
        So there are roles for everyone to play in this and finding
    the most appropriate ways to tackle this problem. So when we
    see--we talked about this already, looked across our data--we
    saw a lot of middle income countries with really rapidly
    developing economies that haven't been able to build their
    waste management infrastructure because of the waste per person
    waste generation that happens with economic growth. So that is
    lagging behind.
        But also in high income countries where we have robust
    waste management practices we still see inputs because of high
    coastal populations and large per person waste generation
    rates.
        So we know the solutions; we have talked about some. We
    must cut back on plastic waste generation and increase the
    amount we capture and manage properly. This sounds simple. We
    do know how to design and manage waste systems, but waste
    management is more than just a design challenge, and this is
    something I talk about. It also has social and cultural
    dimensions.
        So we need global participation from various stakeholders.
    I think there has been a lot of global diverse interest. Our
    discussion here today is very important and our work beyond
    into the future. I am optimistic that we can make headway on
    this problem.
        So increasing reuse and recycling rates of plastic is
    really important. This can grow with the right economic
    structure in place to motivate the collection of plastic waste
    and the reprocessing of it. Yesterday I attended the U.S.
    Chamber of Commerce Sustainability Forum, and there is a lot of
    discussion on the concepts of circular economy and a lot of
    innovative things coming out of that meeting.
        I think we can also consider green engineering principles
    and how we use plastic and what we use it for. We might
    redesign some products; we might substitute some materials. I
    think technology is another potential help similar to the
    marine tracker mobile app that we developed at the University
    of Georgia with the NOAA marine debris program. And I think
    there are a lot of other innovations happening in this space.
        So one last thing I want you to remember today is that
    people are behind many of the numbers I gave you. There are
    people around the world picking up trash off the ground to get
    enough money to eat for that night. There are people around the
    world just learning about this issue for the first time. So I
    think helping every nation develop waste management
    infrastructure to address the issue is critical. It keeps
    plastic out of our oceans and also has large economic and
    public health benefits.
        So we hold the key to the solutions to this in the palm of
    our hands. By changing the way we think about waste, designing
    products for circular materials management, we can open up new
    jobs and opportunities for economic innovation. I think in
    addition we can improve the livelihoods of millions of people
    all around the world while protecting our waterways, our
    wildlife, and our ecosystems.
        Thank you, Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Jambeck follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Dr. Jambeck.
        Mr. Mallos.

        STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS MALLOS, DIRECTOR, TRASH FREE SEAS
                       PROGRAM, OCEAN CONSERVANCY

        Mr. Mallos. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    Committee. My name is Nick Mallos, and I serve as the Director
    of Ocean Conservancy's Trash Free Seas program. I am honored to
    be here to speak to the Subcommittee about the growing problem
    of marine debris, and today I hope to convey, first, the
    magnitude of the problem, the need for more research, and the
    need for systemic solutions.
        Plastic debris exists in every region of the ocean. More
    than 8 million metric tons of plastic now enter our ocean every
    year. And if current trends continue the ocean could contain as
    much as 1 ton of plastic for every 3 tons of fin fish by 2025.
        As a marine biologist I have been fortunate to see
    firsthand the harm caused by plastic debris. Plastic has
    impacted more than 690 species of marine wildlife worldwide.
    For example, plastic bags block or rupture the stomachs of sea
    turtles like the Kemp's ridley in the Gulf of Mexico.
        Plastics in the digestive systems of the Pacific oysters of
    the Northwest reduce reproductive ability by nearly 50 percent.
    And albatross chicks on Midway Atoll starve or choke on plastic
    bottle caps like the very ones you see here from Midway that
    their parents feed them after foraging from thousands of square
    miles of Pacific Ocean surface waters.
        For more than 30 years Ocean Conservancy has been at the
    forefront of the marine debris dialogue, working to tackle it
    from every angle. Beginning on the South Padre Island, Texas,
    beach in 1986, our International Coastal Cleanup has mobilized
    people all across America and more than 150 countries around
    the world around a single focus: keep trash off of our beaches,
    out of our waterways and the ocean.
        Since the Cleanup's inception, more than 225 million items
    of trash, weighing more than 110,000 tons, have been removed
    from our beaches and waterways. Working with these volunteers
    we have been able to construct the Ocean Trash Index, and item-
    by-item, location-by-location data base highlighting the most
    persistent forms of marine debris. It is the largest data base
    of its kind.
        Consistently, plastic items are the most common debris
    found, making up 84 percent of all debris items collected
    during the clean up. Plastics also pose the greatest threat to
    our ocean and our people. However, clean ups alone are not
    enough. We also need to stop trash from getting to the beach in
    the first place.
        Given that in 2011 Ocean Conservancy founded the Trash Free
    Seas Alliance with partners like Dow, Procter & Gamble, and the
    World Wildlife Fund to unite thought leaders from industry,
    conservation, and academia to create pragmatic real world
    solutions to the issue of plastic debris. The Alliance is
    focused on a significant role that a lack of waste management
    in developing economies plays in plastic waste leaking into the
    ocean. Our 2015 report, Stemming the Tide, found that active
    efforts to improve waste management in just five southeast
    economies could reduce the amount of plastic entering our ocean
    globally by nearly 50 percent.
        Stemming the Tide also stresses that efforts to minimize
    the amount of waste we are generating in the first place must
    begin now to fully address the threat of plastic debris. To its
    credit Congress has long recognized this threat to our oceans
    by creating the Marine Debris Program at NOAA, funding clean
    activities all around the United States, and recently passing
    legislation banning plastic microbeads.
        But I am here to tell you more action is needed to build
    better data driven policy solutions to stop plastic from
    entering the ocean in the first place. This need is well
    articulated in a letter to the Trash Free Seas Alliance from
    leading marine scientists around the world. A copy of that
    letter is included in my written statement for reference.
        Put simply scientists and policymakers need to know more
    about where plastic debris originates, where it goes once in
    the ocean, what happens to it when it is there, and what impact
    it is having on the ecosystem. Better understanding in these
    four key areas will help us refine and design the most
    effective solutions. For this purpose we encourage Congress to
    fund more research.
        However, we already know enough to act now. We need to work
    globally to support programs that improve waste management and
    that minimize the amount of waste being generated to keep all
    types of marine debris from entering the environment in the
    first place.
        Finally I would like to share with the Subcommittee these
    letters from more than 10,000 concerned citizens throughout the
    country in support of immediate action to address the growing
    threat of marine debris to ocean health. I respectfully request
    they be included in the hearing record.
        Senator Sullivan. Without objection.
        Mr. Mallos. Again, I would like to thank the Committee for
    inviting me to testify on this important issue, and I look
    forward to answering any questions you may have. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Mallos and the referenced
    information follow:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you. That was great
    testimony.
        Mr. Stone, you have 5 minutes for your oral testimony.

     STATEMENT OF JONATHAN STONE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SAVE THE BAY

        Mr. Stone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Whitehouse
    and members of the Committee, for the opportunity to be here
    today on this important topic. I am going to share with you a
    slightly different perspective on the marine debris problem.
        Our organization, Save the Bay, was founded in 1970 and is
    the largest environmental group in Rhode Island, which, again,
    we are a small State, so that may not be saying too much. But
    we are a major force in the environmental community in southern
    New England. Our mission is to protect and improve Narragansett
    Bay.
        Much like the estuaries up and down the eastern seaboard,
    Narragansett Bay is one of the largest estuaries in New England
    and has been designated by the Federal Government as an estuary
    of national significance. Again, like other estuaries along the
    East Coast, the Bay is an important recreational and commercial
    resource for literally millions of people. It is also an
    important natural resource and habitat for commercial and
    recreational fisheries, hundreds of species of birds, marine
    mammals, shellfish, and other marine animals.
        Probably most relevant to this conversation more than 2
    million people live in the 1,600-square-mile Narragansett Bay
    watershed. More than 90 percent of Rhode Island's population
    lives within a 10-minute drive of the coast.
        Marine debris is a significant pollution problem in
    Narragansett Bay and along Rhode Island's south coast, and as
    Nick spoke of a few minutes ago Save the Bay participates each
    year in the Ocean Conservancy's International Coastal Cleanup.
    We organize clean ups led by volunteers across the State in
    southern New England each and every year.
        Last year, on a single weekend, almost 2,200 volunteers
    collected nearly 10 tons of trash along 65 miles of coastline,
    and I can tell you that virtually none of that came from the
    Pacific Ocean. That is a local, local problem. So the point I
    would like to emphasize for this Committee today is that this
    is not just an international problem; it is a local problem.
        The next chart, the pie chart, highlights the many types of
    trash and debris we remove each year, everything from derelict
    fishing gear and tires to tens of thousands of plastic
    cigarette butts. I remember back in the day cigarette butts
    weren't plastic; they biodegraded. Now they are plastic; they
    do not biodegrade. We collect beverage containers, food
    wrappers, and on and on and on.
        Most insidious and disturbing is the rapid accumulation of
    thousands upon thousands of fragments of plastic waste as it
    breaks down over time into smaller particles. These are
    virtually impossible to clean up and accumulate year after
    year. I have a very short video here to illustrate the point.
    Hopefully it will play here.
        [Video played.]
        Mr. Stone. Marine debris is a human health and safety
    hazard. It also degrades Rhode Island's iconic beaches and
    coastline, which attract millions of visitors each year and
    drive economic activity in our State. It harms animal species
    that inhabit the Bay. It has been observed, for example, that
    nesting osprey chicks suffer when they get tangled in fishing
    line that the osprey parents have used to construct the nest.
    Small bits of plastic, as you have heard from other panelists
    today, are ingested by fish and birds, and important coastal
    habitats are damaged by plastic debris.
        Most disturbing of all, marine debris is a chronic problem.
    It is not a problem without solution. There are solutions. In
    Rhode Island specifically we know that marine debris is caused
    by two things--illegal dumping and littering and polluted
    stormwater runoff. The solution to the stormwater problem is to
    capture runoff in order to filter and clean it before it
    reaches the waterways, the Bay and the coast. This requires
    investments in ongoing maintenance in stormwater
    infrastructure.
        The Federal Government plays an important role through the
    Department of Transportation the U.S. EPA to encourage States
    to develop stormwater management programs and to assist States
    in the design, construction, and maintenance of stormwater
    infrastructure.
        Our experience in Rhode Island is that stormwater
    improvements have additional benefits that go far beyond marine
    debris including reducing beach closures due to bacterial
    contamination, protecting drinking water supplies, reducing
    localized flooding, making neighborhoods more pleasant and
    livable.
        Thank you very much for your attention to this important
    topic. I appreciate the opportunity to be here.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Stone follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Sullivan. Well, thank you, Mr. Stone.
        I want to thank all of you for your outstanding testimony
    and what you do beyond the testimony here. You are all leading
    organizations or in research to help address this problem, and
    very much appreciate that.
        I want to ask a few follow up questions.
        First, Mr. Pallister, I appreciated your testimony where
    you said, look, it is a big issue, but sometimes you need to
    prioritize, and you came down squarely in terms of the
    prioritization with regard to plastics, is that right?
        Mr. Pallister. Yes, correct.
        Senator Sullivan. And let me just ask the other panelists,
    would all of you agree with Mr. Pallister? If we were going to
    be really trying to focus on this prioritize our efforts would
    that be the proper area to focus on? Is everybody in general
    agreement on that, plastics?
        Mr. Mallos. Yes.
        Senator Sullivan. I feel like I am in the movie The
    Graduate, right?
        Mr. Mallos. Yes. I would say I completely concur that
    plastics are the priority focus. But I think when we think
    about solutions particularly as it pertains to many of the
    developing economies, as spotlighted by Dr. Jenna Jambeck's and
    others' work, simply addressing plastics in the waste stream is
    not a viable option. You actually have to address the entire
    waste stream to ensure you are mitigating the threat of
    plastics.
        So completely agree plastics is the most concerning part of
    the marine debris issue but solutions may look at managing the
    entire waste stream.
        Senator Sullivan. Look, Mr. Mallos, I thought you made a
    really good point about when we do clean up we are treating the
    disease, but we are not really preventing it, and we need to
    look at how to prevent it. So let me get back to the issue of
    the international element to this.
        Dr. Jambeck, you focused on that, and Mr. Pallister, I
    think you also talked about 90 percent, which was pretty
    stunning. Does the majority of this plastics debris from these
    five countries come from the shore? We have had a treaty, the
    MARPOL Treaty, which I am sure you are familiar with, but that
    focus is on dumping from ships. Does this debris that we are
    talking about, particularly from the five developing countries,
    come from the shore? And you have touched on it, Dr. Jambeck,
    you touched on it in your testimony; why is this such a
    problem?
        Ms. Jambeck. So just going into a little bit more detail of
    the research, what we did is look at a 50-kilometer buffer in
    192 countries around the world. It is the coastline, and
    population density is a large driver as well as the quantity of
    waste that each person in that area creates.
        Senator Sullivan. So it is pollution that is coming from
    shores, not ships.
        Ms. Jambeck. Correct.
        Senator Sullivan. And why do you think those five
    countries? Senator Whitehouse, he emphasized it. What is going
    on there that is not going on in other countries?
        Ms. Jambeck. So these are middle income countries who have
    started to have rapidly developing economies, which means that
    there is a lot of influx of, I would say, consumer goods and a
    lot of packaging. So as people are able to afford those kinds
    of goods, unfortunately the waste management infrastructure in
    those countries to handle the waste is absolutely--science
    shows that there is a coupling between economic growth and
    waste generation. So the infrastructure isn't there to handle
    it.
        Also the increase in plastic in the waste stream has
    happened very quickly. The production of plastic around the
    world went all the way up to 311 metric tons. So it is also an
    awareness, and I think someone touched on this. People don't
    know the implications of plastic in the environment. Things
    weren't made of plastic before, so they are having to have a
    mind shift of both infrastructure and then having this new
    waste stream that they need to address.
        Senator Sullivan. And in your research have you gone to a
    number of these countries?
        Ms. Jambeck. I have been to India, which is one that has a
    pretty extreme case as well.
        Senator Sullivan. And do you think that most of them would
    recognize that they have a problem, or would they be kind of
    like, hey, we don't really have a problem here?
        Ms. Jambeck. No, I think they do know. And there are a lot
    of grassroots efforts within these countries, and I think
    working with folks in the countries in a context sensitive
    design is important when addressing the issue.
        Senator Sullivan. So we have one international convention,
    the MARPOL Convention, as I mentioned, that addresses this from
    ships. Do you think that we need to do something else from an
    international perspective that addresses this issue,
    particularly plastics from shore?
        Ms. Jambeck. I think that there is a lot of great
    discussion happening at the United Nations level. I think the
    U.S. should be a leader and helping in those discussions. And I
    know that there is a meeting happening later this month, and I
    am hopeful that there will be some resolutions.
        Senator Sullivan. Let me ask one final question.
        Mr. Mallos, you talked about the Trash Free Seas Alliance.
    I think that is a really interesting group that brought
    together the scientific community, environmentalists, industry.
    Can you explain a little bit more on what was the origins of
    that; how it has worked? Because to me the way we need to
    address this--certainly we need to get our international
    partners engaged, but all different stakeholders engaged as
    well, and you seem to have done that already through this
    Alliance.
        Mr. Mallos. So the Trash Free Seas Alliance was founded in
    2011, and it is really built on the existing successful models
    seen in the sustainable seafood movement, alliances that were
    out there in the tropic forest alliances and others. The
    mandate of the Alliance is really to bring together all of the
    diverse stakeholders that need to be a part of the discussion.
        This is a massive problem, and there is no silver bullet.
    So we are going to need a holistic solution that includes
    minimizing the amount of waste we are generating, better
    managing the amount of waste that is currently in the system,
    and mitigating the waste that is already out there through
    clean ups and other mechanisms.
        So bringing together the members of industry who are either
    manufacturing plastics or making goods out of the plastics,
    bringing together the thought leaders in academia like Dr.
    Jenna Jambeck and others who are providing us novel,
    groundbreaking science on this, and then bringing together the
    NGOs and conservation organizations that are trying to drive
    forward policy solutions together build and provide us the
    necessary arsenal of weapons to actually tackle this issue at
    all angles.
        As I noted currently we are providing--working to try and
    jump start waste management in these developing economies, and
    I think it is really important to underscore that this is not
    currently a China problem or a Philippines issue, but this is
    rather an unintended consequence of rapid development. So
    thinking about how we work in these countries with the folks on
    the ground that are already leading this issue and already
    recognize that waste management is a challenge, coming at it
    from that angle and bringing together the global resources like
    the members of the Trash Free Seas Alliance possess is a
    winning recipe.
        Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you.
        Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much.
        Thank you to a terrific panel.
        Let me start with Mr. Pallister. You used a phrase in your
    testimony, the ``chemical signature of plastic components.''
    Could you elaborate on that phrase?
        Mr. Pallister. Yes. It has always been my fear that the
    chemicals in plastic are much more dangerous than the physical
    things they cause, like ingestion, entanglement and everything.
    It reminds me of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and all the
    chemicals were killing the birds in mass quantities compared to
    them getting killed by power lines and things like that.
        But now scientists are looking and they are finding
    chemicals from plastic, all inherent chemicals, the metabolites
    that break down from the chemicals, in all kinds of marine
    organisms. I think Dr. Jambeck would attest to that, too. And a
    lot of those chemicals are very, very toxic; they have very
    significant impacts on human health, and one of the primary
    researchers on a paper that was just published on thiolate is
    in the room here and she would know more about this than I, if
    you want to talk to her later.
        Senator Whitehouse. So you start with a piece of plastic
    that is floating in the ocean; it degrades and degrades into
    tiny little bits. Ultimately, those tiny little bits get taken
    up by some tiny little creature, and in that creature it can
    deteriorate further or be absorbed in a way that lets the
    chemicals loose from the plastic, and at that point, as
    creatures feed on it, it begins to bioaccumulate up the food
    chain, is that right?
        Mr. Pallister. That is exactly right. And the chemicals
    like pthalates that are put in the plastic to make it softer
    aren't very strongly bonded to the plastic, and they leech out
    very easily.
        Senator Whitehouse. So this could come home to roost in
    Alaskan salmon or other fish?
        Mr. Pallister. Oh, absolutely. The one slide we had there,
    the researchers are finding pthalates in practically every
    marine organism they look at up there, and nobody is really
    putting a lot of time and money into that, and to me I think it
    is a tremendous threat not just environmentally but also to
    human health and the commercial health of our fisheries up
    there. It would be just devastating if the loads of pthalates
    get so high that we can't eat the fish.
        Senator Whitehouse. Dr. Jambeck, the plastics that you have
    studied, how long do the various major types of plastic last?
    What is their curve as they biodegrade?
        Ms. Jambeck. So they fragment over time, and we don't
    really know.
        Senator Whitehouse. How much time? Are we talking
    centuries?
        Ms. Jambeck. You know what? We were in our scientific
    working group starting to address sort of the mechanisms and
    the speed of fragmentation, and we are not there yet; we don't
    really know. We know that it goes in, like I said, like this,
    and then on the beach it is washing up here. But it is a very
    long period of time, we suspect, but at the same time we
    already are seeing these fragments and a lot of this plastic
    has gone in in the last 50 years. So we really need to know
    more about that, and we really need to do more research.
        Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Mallos, what do you think about the
    notion of biodegradable plastics? Is that just a way of
    accelerating this bad process, or is there some better way to
    deal with that issue?
        Mr. Mallos. So biodegradable plastics are designed to break
    down biologically in very specific industrial settings.
    Standards exist that test and guarantee that those plastics
    will in fact perform that way when applied with X temperature.
    The challenge is those conditions exist very few places in the
    natural environment.
        And particularly when we look at the ocean environment,
    which has cooler temperatures, wind and radiation, UV
    radiation, et cetera, we know that biodegradable plastics
    perform just like traditional plastics, fragment at a rapid
    rate. So certainly there is need for more research to look at
    material and product innovation and design, but at the moment
    biodegradable plastics are not a solution to the ocean plastic
    problem.
        Senator Whitehouse. And Mr. Stone, in terms of the array of
    stuff that Save the Bay sees coming ashore in Rhode Island,
    which in our case has probably not been coming from those
    Pacific countries, it would have to travel a very long way to
    get there; a lot of it appears to be packaging. Are there
    efforts that can be undertaken or should be undertaken to brand
    some form of ocean safe packaging, so that a consumer can have
    a sense that this product will in fact biodegrade in a proper
    way and try to move the consumer toward seeking a better
    product in the same way that people go out of their way to buy
    dolphin safe tuna if they are given the choice?
        Mr. Stone. It is a good question. I think the rule of
    prevention is the path that probably is going to give you the
    most effective method of reducing pollution at the source. So I
    think what you have raised gets to this biodegradable question
    about how can packaging companies innovate in ways that produce
    materials that do degrade and are more environmentally
    friendly, and I think to the extent that the products actually
    perform as promised that is probably a step in the right
    direction.
        But I think there are other things that are as important.
    Recycling ends up being extremely important, getting people to
    reuse recycle to prevent these packaging products from entering
    the environment and to be contained within the normal waste
    stream is the first step. That way you don't have the products
    washing into the environment off the streets and off the urban
    landscape. And in the Far East the runoff issue is the primary
    source. It is mostly this heavily developed landscape that is
    sort of where these plastic products come from when they end up
    in the sea.
        Senator Whitehouse. My time is up, but I really want to
    thank Chairman Sullivan for hosting this. I think this has been
    a very productive, well attended, and bipartisan hearing. I
    think that the witnesses have been terrific.
        I would like to make it a matter of public record that Dr.
    Kurth is still here. He stayed to listen to the witness
    testimony. I don't know that I have ever actually seen that
    before. Usually, Administration witnesses scoot for the door
    the instant that they can. So I think it is significant that he
    stayed to listen through all of this, and I appreciate him
    doing that. And I hope that being called out that way is not
    inappropriate, but I was impressed.
        My final comment will be that I, in my opening remarks,
    mentioned the Trans-Pacific Trade partnership. For those of us
    who are very skeptical about the extent to which it bakes in
    false advantages for products that are made in those countries,
    the false advantage of not having an effective water management
    system in your country so that you dump millions of tons of
    plastic into the world's oceans, and that makes your products
    cheaper compared to a competing American product that not only
    has to support its own cost, but the infrastructure cost of a
    working waste management system, is exactly the kind of
    advantage that, first of all, makes me nuts about that
    agreement.
        But it gives us a real, I think, opportunity to focus on
    that is no fair basis on which to make a trade distinction. The
    more we can drive these countries to clean up their act, I
    think, as Dr. Jambeck said, you surge up into a level of
    economic development where you are starting to use plastic for
    the first time, and it becomes ubiquitous, but you have a
    concomitant responsibility to bring your waste management
    infrastructure up to snuff as well. And if we are not going to
    urge them to do that through our trade policies, then shame on
    us.
        But again, Chairman Sullivan, thank you for letting me go
    over here a minute, and thank you for this hearing.
        Senator Sullivan. No problem, Senator Whitehouse. Matter of
    fact, as Chairman of this Committee, I am going to take the
    prerogative to ask just a few more follow up questions, and if
    you have any more, feel free to ask.
        I just want to, first, thank the Committee again. This has
    been a really good panel.
        Mr. Pallister, given that you have traveled quite a
    distance here, from Alaska, to come testify, I wanted to ask
    another question to you, a little more Alaska specific. Can you
    describe some of the challenges on the clean up of marine
    debris that we face in parts of the country, Alaska, but there
    are other parts that have very, very remote areas, very remote
    areas of our coastlines?
        Mr. Pallister. It is extremely difficult in Alaska because
    we have virtually no shoreline that has vehicle access to it,
    so you get there by boat or you get there by air, and right now
    we are working on Montague Island, which is a notoriously
    horribly polluted area. We have 10 people out there working. We
    have to move them with helicopters. So you can imagine the
    cost. And this is a shoreline where 30 tons of plastic debris
    per mile exists. It is extremely rugged; the weather is
    horrible.
        Senator Sullivan. Did I hear that right? Say that again.
        Mr. Pallister. Thirty tons of plastic debris per mile.
    Montague has 74 miles of shoreline just like that, and we have
    been working on it for three summers now, and we have only
    cleaned 9 miles of it, and it is costing a tremendous amount of
    money. And we are a nonprofit. We are not in it for the money;
    it is by the seat of our pants. It is a dangerous place to
    work, it is incredibly challenging, and there are thousands of
    miles like that along Alaska coasts, and it is extremely rich.
        But I wanted to go to back to the Trans-Pacific Trade
    Treaty you are working on now. There is an opportunity here
    because shipping is protected under an international treaty,
    but here is an opportunity. There are a lot of shipping
    companies that lose containers, and nobody ever goes after them
    for the damage they cause onshore.
        In 2012, January 2012, the China Ocean Shipping Company's
    big transport ship, the Yokohama, lost 29 containers in the
    northern Gulf of Alaska. The debris from those containers has
    now spread over thousands of miles of shoreline. So this is
    kind of official notice to the Federal Government now, you have
    a statute of limitations of 2 years for the landowners, which
    would be the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service
    and the rest of them, to go after the China Ocean Shipping
    Company for damages to clean all that up. You are talking tens
    of millions of dollars of potential resource for clean up work.
        Also, that big ship, I think it was a ship that went down
    in the Bermuda Triangle last year and killed a bunch of
    sailors, but it also lost 200 and some containers. Nobody is
    talking about getting recovery for the plastics that are going
    to be coming out of those containers for generations, and it is
    something that ought to be explored.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
        Mr. Mallos, one other. I am very interested in some of the
    alliances that you have worked on. In 2011 the global plastics
    industry led an international effort that resulted in the
    Global Declaration for Solutions on Marine Litter. Can you talk
    a little bit about that, what motivated the stakeholders to do
    that and what has been accomplished since its adoption?
        Mr. Mallos. So the Declaration on Marine Litter was
    announced at the 5th International Marine Debris Conference in
    Honolulu, and I think what the Declaration underscores is the
    recognition and acknowledgment by the global plastics industry
    that they have a role and responsibility in crafting solutions.
    We believe very strongly that the plastics industry and the
    consumer goods industry have a role to play in not only helping
    to develop solutions but also looking at ways to finance and
    provide resources to implement solutions.
        That is precisely what we created the Trash Free Seas
    Alliance platform to do. And it is worth noting several of the
    signatories to the Declaration are in fact members of the Trash
    Free Seas Alliance and are quite active in helping us look at
    how we not only craft solutions but implement them looking at
    the political boundaries, looking at the management systems
    currently in place. So there is the recognition by the
    industry, and there has been active engagement and solutions
    put forth by them to tackle this problem.
        Senator Sullivan. Well, listen, I want to thank the
    panelists again. This is one of these issues, in my view, that
    not enough Members of Congress, not enough Americans are aware
    of, and it is certainly something that we should all be
    concerned about. And I do think that what you have done, and it
    is a very important service, is not only describe some of the
    challenges, but put forward ideas for solutions both at the
    clean up stage but also at the origins of this problem.
        So I can tell you Senator Whitehouse and I are already
    talking about maybe looking at some ideas to address this, so I
    think you have furthered a bipartisan consensus on the need to
    take action here. So we will stay tuned. But thanks again for
    all your hard work. Thanks for your excellent testimony.
        I will let Senator Whitehouse close here.
        Senator Whitehouse. Just before we sign off, I would like
    to offer each of these four witnesses the same opportunity
    offered Dr. Kurth, who is still here, which is to give us a
    highlight reel of up to, say, five recommendations that you
    would make to Senator Sullivan and myself by way of things that
    you think we could do to be helpful, and that will give us a
    good array of ideas to consider.
        I thank all the witnesses. I thank the Chairman.
        Senator Sullivan. This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                     [all]