[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 46 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3218-S3222]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. D'Amato):
  S. 1659. A bill to declare a portion of Queens County, New York, to 
be nonnavigable waters of the United States, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


           the queens-west waterfront development act of 1996

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, with my esteemed 
colleague Senator D'Amato, a bill to eliminate an impediment to an 
important economic development project in Queens. The Queens West 
development is 12 years in the making. Construction of the first 
apartment tower should create 1,000 construction jobs, and the entire 
project should ultimately create 14,000 construction jobs and 10,000 
permanent jobs. This in a county with unemployment two points higher 
than the State average.
  With the financial parties ready to go to closing this month, the 
title search turned up an impediment that threatens to make the entire 
project uninsurable, and therefore untenable. A portion of the 
development would be built on an area that in the last century was on 
the watery side of the historical high water mark of the East River. 
Since then it has been filled, bulkheaded, or otherwise developed. The 
Federal Government, however, retains the right of navigational 
servitude, which means the Government can condemn the area because it 
is still navigable in law, if not in fact.
  The only solution is for Congress to declare the area nonnavigable. 
This bill does so. The declaration of nonnavigability would apply only 
to areas that ``will be bulkheaded, filled, or otherwise occupied by 
permanent structures or other physical improvements''--including 
parklands. The declaration would expire in 20 years if the area is not 
occupied by permanent structures.
  Mr. President, I believe this is a commonsense effort to allow an 
important project to go forward. We will not need to resume navigating 
this portion of the East River. We do need the economic development 
that the Queens West project will bring. Senator D'Amato and I ask for 
the support of our colleagues.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1659

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. DECLARATION OF NONNAVIGABILITY FOR PORTION OF 
                   QUEENS COUNTY, NEW YORK.

       (a) Description of Nonnavigable Area.--Subject to 
     subsections (b) and (c), that portion of Long Island City, 
     Queens County, New York, which is not submerged and lies 
     between the existing southerly high water line of Anable 
     Basin (also known as the 11th Street Basin) and the existing 
     northerly high water line of Newtown Creek and extends from 
     the existing high water line of the East River to the 
     original high water line of the East River is declared to be 
     nonnavigable waters of the United States.
       (b) Requirement That Areas Be Improved.--
       (1) In general.--The declaration of nonnavigability under 
     subsection (a) shall apply only to those portions of the 
     areas described in subsection (a) that are or will be 
     bulkhead, filled, or otherwise occupied by permanent 
     structures or other permanent physical improvements 
     (including parklands).
       (2) Applicability of federal law.--The work to meet the 
     requirements of paragraph (1) shall be subject to applicable 
     Federal laws, including--
       (A) sections 9 and 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899, commonly 
     known as the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (33 
     U.S.C. 401 and 403);
       (B) section 404 of the Federal Water pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1344); and
       (C) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (43 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       (c) Expiration Date.--The declaration of nonnavigability 
     under subsection (a) shall expire with respect to a portion 
     of an area described in subsection (b), if that portion--
       (1) is not filled or otherwise occupied by a permanent 
     structure or other permanent physical improvement (including 
     parkland) in accordance with subsection (b) by the date that 
     is 20 years after the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (2) requires work described in subsection (b)(2) that is 
     subject to a permit under an applicable Federal law, and that 
     work is not commenced by the date that is 5 years after the 
     date of issuance of that permit.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my friend and 
colleague, Senator Moynihan, in introducing legislation that will allow 
for the commencement of a project of immense economic significance in 
the city of New York and the Borough of Queens. This project, which has 
been named Queens West, will produce a myriad of waterfront apartment 
buildings, parkland, hotel, and commercial space and will create 14,000 
construction jobs as well as 10,000 permanent jobs. This ambitious 
project will rejuvenate this section of New York and add to its 
vitality for countless generations to come.
  As I am sure many of my colleagues can understand, there is a great 
deal of excitement about the Queens West project. However, with the 
parties ready to close, a single issue has emerged that could delay the 
financing and disrupt the timing of this project. Some of the land upon 
which Queens West is to be built falls within the historic, 
unobstructed high water mark of the East River that was established in 
the 1800's. However, a bulkhead has since been established in this 
particular area and industrial development has occurred there for many 
years.

[[Page S3219]]

 Nevertheless, this area still remains defined as ``navigable in law'' 
which allows the Federal Government to retain a right to navigational 
servitude. Because of this glitch, the project may not be insurable and 
may not therefore commence in a timely fashion.
  The legislation that Senator Moynihan and I are introducing will 
rectify this situation. Simply, it will declare this portion of the 
land nonnavigable and thus take the property out of navigational 
servitude. Should no permanent structure be built on this site within 
20 years, the area reverts to its current status. Once this bill is 
passed, the Borough of Queens and indeed all of New York will receive a 
vital economic boost. This legislation is identical to H.R. 2987, which 
Congressman Tom Manton introduced in the House of Representatives, and 
enjoys support from State and city officials.
  Mr. President, the thousands of jobs, the housing, the recreational 
opportunities, and the commercial benefits created by the Queens West 
project are urgently needed. I urge my colleagues to join Senator 
Moynihan and I in supporting speedy passage of this legislation.
                                       

      By Mr. GLENN (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Moynihan, 
        Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Inouye, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
        D'Amato, and Mr. Levin):
  S. 1660. A bill to provide for ballast water management to prevent 
the introduction and spread of nonindigenous species into the waters of 
the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


               the national invasive species act of 1996

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the National 
Invasive Species Act of 1996 with my colleagues Senators Leahy, 
Jeffords, Moynihan, Sarbanes, Johnston, Inouye, Mikulski, and Levin. 
This act is a reauthorization and expansion of the Nonindigenous 
Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990. I am pleased that 
my Ohio colleague, Congressman LaTourette and 18 of his colleagues in 
the House of Representatives also are introducing this act today.

  Picture a pollution spill in the waters of your region that simply 
will not go away. Government and industry teams work to disperse it 
with chemicals and mechanical barriers, but as soon as the treatments 
stop, the pollution resurges. Worse yet, the spill spreads and 
concentrates in connecting water ways, and is further seeded by 
unintentional transport overland. Municipalities, manufacturers, and 
agriculture experience degraded water supplies and higher operating 
costs. Shell fisheries and fin fisheries permanently decline.
  This scenario seems like a nightmare, yet it closely approximates the 
result of unintentional releases of nonindigenous species, or 
biological pollution, into U.S. waters. As a Senator from the Great 
Lakes region, where we spend many millions of dollars annually to 
battle sea lamprey and zebra mussel infestations, I can attest that 
such biological spills can and do happen, their impacts on the 
receiving system are additive, and the resource degradation is 
permanent.
  As shown in the display map, the zebra mussel, a native species of 
eastern Europe, has spread throughout the United States from the Great 
Lakes where it was unintentionally introduced in ballast water of 
commercial vessels around 1986. Wherever it becomes established, the 
zebra mussel threatens both economic and environmental well-being. It 
clogs intake pipes, fouls drinking water, and covers swimming beaches 
with sharp shells. The zebra mussel also has led to the loss of many 
highly valued native species of freshwater mussel in both the Great 
Lakes and the Mississippi River.
  I remember when Allegra Cangelosi, who is with me on the floor today, 
first came into my office and talked about zebra mussels in the 1980's. 
She had a bottle of these critters and set them on my desk and said, 
``Here is what they are.'' And they multiply--each zebra mussel lays 
about 30,000 eggs a year. Eggs that are laid early in the season mature 
into adult zebra mussels by the end of the season.
  Zebra mussels and other nonindigenous species can survive in ballast 
water transported into our nations waters largely because we now have 
faster sea transportation. Ironically, some of our own waters in this 
country are cleaner, allowing the species to become established.
  The Great Lakes are not the only entryway for invasive species into 
U.S. waters. Last week, I hosted a National Forum on Nonindigenous 
Species Invasions of U.S. and Fresh Waters in cooperation with the 
Northeast-Midwest Institute. At the day long event, experts and natural 
resource stakeholders from around the country cited invasion impacts in 
just about all of America's fresh and marine waters. Biodiversity and 
economic well-being are suffering due to invasions of nonindigenous 
species in San Francisco Bay, the Pacific Islands, the Gulf of Mexico, 
the Mississippi River, the Northeast and Southeast Atlantic coasts, the 
Great Lakes, and Lake Champlain.
  In 1990, I authored and gained enactment of the Nonindigenous Aquatic 
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act to begin to address the tremendous 
problem of unintentional invasions of aquatic species into the Great 
Lakes and other U.S. waters. The 1990 act consisted of two basic parts: 
One which focused on prevention of new introductions of species into 
the Great Lakes by the ballast water of vessels; and the other which 
established a national program of prevention, monitoring, management, 
and control of invasive species already established in U.S. waters. 
All of the many vectors of aquatic species transfers fell under the 
purview of this portion of the act. Most of the revisions contained in 
the bill which I am introducing today with my Senate and House 
colleagues pertain to the prevention portion of the program.

  With respect to prevention, the 1990 act focused on ballast water of 
vessels. This water is the leading vector for unintentional transfers 
of nonindigenous species into United States waters. Ships carry ballast 
water to maintain trim when they are empty or partially empty of cargo. 
They discharge this water at their ports of call. Currently, there is 
practically nothing to prevent the uptake, transfer, and discharge of 
organisms along with that water.
  An estimated 21 billion gallons of ballast water from vessels from 
foreign ports is discharged into U.S. waters each year. That's 58 
million gallons per day, and 2.4 million gallons per hour. This ballast 
water contains just about everything and anything that was in the 
harbor from which the water was drawn. It is estimated that 3,000 
species of aquatic organisms are in transit in ballast tanks around the 
world in any given 24-hour period. Most of these organisms will come to 
nothing in the receiving ports, but any one of them could cause 
billions of dollars of damage. It's a huge gamble. Even human cholera 
is transported unintentionally in ballast water and has been detected 
in ships visiting Mobile Bay and the Chesapeake, among other regions.
  Fortunately, a ballast management practice known as high seas ballast 
exchange greatly reduces the transfers of dangerous organisms through 
ballast water. This technique is not applicable in all circumstances; 
it cannot be employed in stormy weather and with some types of vessels. 
However, where it can be employed safely, it results in a substantial 
reduction in the risk of invasive species transfers. It is for this 
reason that the Australian Government among other nations, and the 
International Maritime Organization, already encourage ballast 
management practices for commercial vessels.
  The 1990 law included a voluntary ballast management program for the 
Great Lakes which automatically became regulatory in 1992. The act 
assigned the Coast Guard the task of consulting with the maritime 
industry and Canada to develop voluntary guidelines, conducting 
education and outreach, and, after 2 years, promulgating regulations to 
help reduce the probability of new introductions of alien species by 
commercial vessels into the Great Lakes.
  The 1990 act also included several studies to help build information 
on the threat and impacts of ballast discharge on other U.S. waters. 
These studies, now complete, provide strong evidence that unmitigated 
ballast water exchange is a serious economic and environmental threat 
in regions

[[Page S3220]]

outside the Great Lakes. In particular, the biological study conducted 
pursuant to the act found that a new species of aquatic organism 
invades San Francisco Bay every 12 weeks. Serious risks of invasion to 
the Chesapeake Bay and Florida coasts have also been documented. A crab 
which is the host of a dangerous human parasite has been found in 
United States waters within the Gulf of Mexico, fortunately not yet 
established.
  In light of this information, and based on the successful experience 
with the Great Lakes voluntary ballast management program, my 1996 
proposal establishes a national voluntary ballast management program to 
begin to address concerns of other United States coastal regions. The 
Coast Guard is directed to issue voluntary ballast management 
guidelines for all vessels visiting U.S. ports after operating outside 
the exclusive economic zone. Consistent with the Great Lakes program, I 
want to stress, Mr. President, that this program puts safety first. The 
guidelines will protect the safety of vessel and crew, whatever that 
may entail, including waiving the requirement where necessary.
  While there will be no penalty against vessels which do not 
participate in the national program, record keeping by vessels 
to document participation is required. In the interest of maintaining a 
level playing field, the Coast Guard has authority to issue the same 
guidelines as regulations in regions where a review of ship records 
reveals poor cooperation with the voluntary approach. Importantly, the 
maritime industry would see only one set of rules nationally. However, 
over time, there may be enforcement mechanisms associated with the 
guidelines in certain regions. Of great interest to the Great Lakes 
community, the successful Great Lakes regulatory program remains in 
place. For better prevention of invasions in the future, a ballast 
water management demonstration program is established in the Act. This 
project will demonstrate promising ballast technologies and practices 
to prevent the introduction and spread of nonindigenous species through 
ballast water.

  Other changes to the 1990 program which are contained in our National 
Invasive Species Act of 1996 include: First, the authorization of 
research in several coastal regions--including the Chesapeake Bay, Lake 
Champlain, the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico--which are at 
particular risk of degradation by species invasions; second, voluntary 
guidelines to help recreational boaters to prevent unintentional 
transfer of zebra mussels; and third, provisions to encourage more 
regions to set up coordinating panels and develop State management 
plans for invasive species prevention and control. Though now much 
broader in scope, I am proud to announce that the overall cost of the 
National Invasive Species Act of 1996 does not exceed that of the 1990 
law.
  I would like to close by pointing out that species invasions that 
originate anywhere on the continent have the potential to affect all of 
us. Once established on the North American continent nonindigenous 
invasive organisms will make their way to the far reaches of their 
potential range. Just as the zebra mussel has expanded its range from 
the Great Lakes to the entire Mississippi River and has been found on 
recreational vessels entering California, the east coast marine 
resources could be harmed by invasions on the west coast and vice-
versa. Moreover, biological pollution of U.S. waters, so far, has not 
had serious public health implications. But the 1992 transfer of human 
cholera from South American ports to the shellfish beds of Mobile Bay 
via ballast water of commercial vessels reminds us that our luck may 
not hold forever. It is in everyone's interest to improve our Nation's 
precautions against invasions of aquatic nuisance species. Mr. 
President, I will ask unanimous consent that an updated version of a 
Northeast-Midwest Economic Review article be printed in the Record 
following my remarks. This article provides further background on the 
context, history, and content of the National Invasive Species Act.
  I am personally quite excited about the progress that we can make in 
protecting the economy, the environment, and the biodiversity of our 
coasts through passing the National Invasive Species Act this year. 
Unusual in the environmental arena, this issue offers us low-hanging 
fruit and bipartisan enthusiasm. I am grateful to my colleagues, 
Senators Leahy and Sarbanes for authoring legislation last year which 
helped draw attention to the national scope of the invasive species 
problem, and to my other colleagues for joining us in support of the 
National Invasive Species Act. I look forward to working closely with 
them to gain its enactment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the text of the bill be printed in the Record, along with the article 
previously mentioned.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           Biological Invasions: Congress Takes a Second Look

 (By Allegra Cangelosi, Senior Policy Analyst of the Northeast-Midwest 
                              Institute,)

 [From an Updated Version of an Article That Appeared in the Northwest-
                Midwest Economic Review, September 1995]

       Five years into implementation of the Nonindigenous Aquatic 
     Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA), there 
     is new awareness of the magnitude of the exotic species 
     problem and the difficulty of the management task. As 
     Congress prepares to reauthorize the Act, it faces pressure 
     to broaden the prevention program to include coastal areas in 
     addition to the Great Lakes, while keeping the burdens of 
     regulation to a minimum.


                    The Life and Times of NANPCA '90

       In 1989 and 1990, the zebra mussel infestation of the lower 
     Great Lakes exploded before the startled eyes of the region's 
     natural resource managers and industrial water users. Mussel 
     encrustation of intake pipes shut-down the Monroe, MI city 
     water supply for two-days, bringing the impact of the zebra 
     mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) directly to the homes of basin 
     residents. Meanwhile, a population of Eurasian ruffe 
     (Gymnocephalus cernuus), a small forage fish native to 
     Eastern Europe, staged in Duluth/Superior Harbor, preparing 
     for an all but inevitable migration from the cold waters of 
     Lake Superior to the more habitable lower Great Lakes.
       For fishery and biodiversity experts, the appearance of 
     both the zebra mussel and the ruffe implied permanent 
     degradation of the Great Lakes ecosystem. Over time, the two 
     alien species were expected to spread to all five Great Lakes 
     and most of the U.S. freshwater system. Irreversible loss in 
     biological diversity was inevitable; the only question was 
     whether the degradation would be cataclysmic, or gradual and 
     insidious.
       These concerns arose from hard experience. The sea lamprey 
     (Petromyzon marinus), native to the Atlantic, caused a near 
     collapse of the Great Lakes fishery in the 1950s. A 
     fortuitous discovery of a chemical lampricide is the only 
     reason the fishery is once again abundant. But lampricide 
     treatments, even coupled with vigorous fish stocking efforts 
     by the States, have been effective only at restoring the 
     rough appearance of the pre-lamprey fishery. They cannot 
     restore the system's previous structure, composition or self-
     sustainability. Moreover, without annual treatments with the 
     lampricide, the populations of lampreys would quickly 
     rebound. The annual battle to continue funding for the 
     lamprey control program provides Great Lakes fishery experts 
     constant incentive to avert the costly and enduring impacts 
     of further exotic species invasions.
       The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control 
     Act of 1990 (NANPCA) originated in draft in 1989 in response 
     to concern over the potential impact of the Eurasian ruffe on 
     the Great Lakes fishery. But the zebra mussel infestation 
     ultimately filled its political sails, to reach final 
     enactment in just a year.
       The Act, championed by Senator John Glenn of Ohio, enjoyed 
     enthusiastic support of the bipartisan Great Lakes delegation 
     in both chambers, and several federal agencies, especially 
     the Fish and Wildlife Service. It also benefitted from the 
     commitment of environment committee leadership from outside 
     the basin.
       NANPCA set forth a national program for preventing, 
     researching, monitoring and controlling infestations in U.S. 
     waters of alien aquatic species. It set up a standing multi-
     agency task force (the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force), 
     chaired by NOAA and the Fish and Wildlife Service, to develop 
     and oversee the program, a policy review of the impacts of 
     intentional introductions of exotic species (such as for 
     sport fishing or biological pest control), a zebra mussel 
     demonstration project, and state aquatic nuisance management 
     planning. It created a Great Lakes Aquatic Nuisance Species 
     Panel to help coordinate federal, state, local and private 
     sector activities to prevent and control exotic species 
     within the Great Lakes basin. Other provisions addressed the 
     brown tree snake, research protocols to prevent the spread of 
     exotics by research and risk assessment.
       Most importantly, the Act assigned the Coast Guard the task 
     of promulgating voluntary guidelines and, after two-years, 
     regulations to help reduce the probability of new 
     introductions of alien species by commercial

[[Page S3221]]

     vessels. The ballast water of commercial vessels is a leading 
     vector by which alien aquatic species enter U.S. waters. The 
     zebra mussel and the ruffe, along with the spiny water flea 
     (Bythotrephes cederstroemi), and many of the hundred-plus 
     other alien organisms that currently complicate the Great 
     Lakes ecosystem were transported to the Great Lakes in the 
     ballast holds of transoceanic vessels. Red tide, human 
     cholera, and the brown clam (Perna perna), are examples of 
     ballast stow-aways that have been discharged into U.S. marine 
     coastal environments.
       The 1990 Act underwent many changes as it moved through the 
     Congressional process to enactment. Perhaps the most 
     significant such change was the decision by the Senate 
     Commerce Committee to reduce the scope of the Coast Guard 
     prevention program from national to Great Lakes-only. Besides 
     fiscal concerns of the Coast Guard, the political rationale 
     for such a change was clear. The maritime community had no 
     choice but to acknowledge the obvious though unintended 
     impacts of its ballasting practices on the Great Lakes 
     environment. Moreover, as residents of the basin, Great Lakes 
     port operators and the laker association members shared 
     concern over the condition of the Great Lakes ecosystem. But 
     in areas other than the Great Lakes, there was less awareness 
     of exotic species impacts and the broader maritime community 
     was under less pressure to change its ballasting practices.


                            Today's Context

       Today, six years after initial passage of the Act, there is 
     growing interest in reforming the measure to better address 
     other U.S. waters. The zebra mussel has become established in 
     much of the freshwater systems of the eastern United States, 
     including the upper Mississippi River, where it has degraded 
     an economically valuable commercial mollusk fishery. 
     Similarly, there is new awareness of the threat of 
     nonindigenous species to marine coastal areas. Perna perna, 
     native to the Indo-Pacific region, invaded South America via 
     ballast discharge years ago, and was transported to the Gulf 
     of Mexico near Galveston, Texas, more recently. The non-
     native mussel threatens Mangrove communities, coats hard 
     surfaces and could compete with native oysters.
       In some cases, concern over the impact of exotic species on 
     aquatic systems beyond the Great Lakes has been elevated to 
     the Congressional level. In 1995, Senator Sarbanes (MD) 
     introduced the Chesapeake Bay Ballast Water Management Act of 
     1995, S. 938, to assure that the reauthorization of NANPCA 
     broadens the Coast Guard's ballast management program to 
     include saltwater coasts. In response the mussel's spread to 
     Vermont, Senator Leahy introduced a measure, the Lake 
     Champlain Zebra Mussel Control Act, S. 1089, to focus the 
     reauthorization on the needs of Lake Champlain.
       Both legislative measures are firmly rooted in the 
     expressed interests of local constituencies. For example, the 
     Sarbanes bill is a response to resolutions passed by the 
     Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania general assemblies urging 
     action to prevent future introductions of nonindigenous 
     aquatic species into the Chesapeake Bay through ballast 
     management. A report developed by a wide range of 
     stakeholders and endorsed by the Chesapeake Bay Commission 
     further spells out the recommendations of the States. While 
     the Sarbanes bill proposes national voluntary guidelines for 
     ballast management, the Chesapeake Bay proposal urges a 
     follow-on regulatory system nationally within 24 months if 
     participation or effectiveness of the voluntary system is 
     inadequate.


                 National Invasive Species Act of 1996

       Senator Glenn, author of the 1990 NANPCA, is the lead 
     sponsor of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA) 
     which reauthorizes and expands the 1990 Act. A bipartisan 
     group of Senators from in and outside the Great Lakes region 
     has joined him in sponsoring the measure. Congressman 
     LaTourette and his colleagues are the sponsors of a companion 
     bill in the House of Representatives. As in 1990, the Senate 
     Commerce Committee is expected to have jurisdiction over the 
     prevention portion of the measure, while the Environment and 
     Public Works Committee will consider the remainder of the 
     bill. Both the Resources Committee and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure will likely have 
     jurisdiction over part or all of the House measure.
       In the stark light of 1995-1996 budget fights, a national 
     regulatory ballast management program such as the one 
     proposed in the original 1990 bill appears impractical and 
     unaffordable. To implement such a scheme, the Coast Guard 
     would have to monitor compliance with regulations at each 
     harbor, stretching human and monetary resources beyond their 
     limits. On the other hand, if the Coast Guard were to simply 
     issue national voluntary guidelines, the effort would lack 
     accountability, providing little additional protection for 
     regions eager for change such as the Chesapeake Bay.
       NISA 1996 finds a middle ground. It emphasizes a voluntary 
     approach in light of the positive response of the shipping 
     community to the voluntary phase of the Great Lakes program. 
     But it reserves authority for the Coast Guard to promulgate 
     the same voluntary guidelines as regulations in coastal 
     regions where recordkeeping or compliance with the voluntary 
     system seem to be lacking. Such an approach gives shippers 
     and ports both the opportunity and incentive to cooperate 
     with voluntary guidelines, while conserving Coast Guard 
     resources for regions with special needs.
       Whether voluntary or not, a national ballast management 
     program which employs existing port inspection infrastructure 
     will hold the additional hassle for ports, shippers and the 
     Coast Guard to a minimum. NISA 1996 urges a cooperative 
     approach between the Coast Guard and the Animal and Plant 
     Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which already boards 
     vessels to inspect for crop pests. The addition of just a few 
     items on the questionnaire that APHIS routinely distributes 
     to vessel masters could meet new ballast-related reporting 
     needs.
       Among other changes that are included in NISA 1996 are: 
     Ballast technology demonstrations: A bill introduced in the 
     103rd Congress (and passed in the House) to create a 
     demonstration program for ballast technologies that can be 
     installed or designed into commercial vessels to prevent the 
     unintentional transfers of exotic species is incorporated 
     into NISA 1996.
       Naval ballast management: A provision from the Sarbanes 
     bill (S. 938) to incorporate ballast management procedures 
     into naval operations is included.
       Ecological surveys, ballast discharge surveys: The package 
     authorizes the National Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 
     to undertake ecological and ballast discharge surveys for 
     selected harbor areas to assess the risks and impacts of 
     invasions by exotic species.
       Voluntary guidelines for recreational boaters: The recent 
     discovery of live zebra mussels on the hull of a recreational 
     vessel ready to enter California waters underscores the role 
     of recreational boating in spreading exotic species 
     infestations. A provision of Senator Leahy's legislation (S. 
     1089) to create national voluntary guidelines for 
     recreational boaters to prevent the spread of zebra mussels 
     is included in NISA 1996.
       Regional coordination: The reauthorization package includes 
     a provision to encourage the establishment of regional 
     coordinating panels for other regions of the country in 
     addition to the Great Lakes.
       While the U.S. government invests over $100 million 
     annually to prevent new invasions of exotic agricultural 
     pests, less than $1 million is being invested to prevent new 
     introductions of nonindigenous aquatic organisms as 
     devastation as the sea lamprey. NISA 1996 offers Congress an 
     important opportunity to better protect the nation's valuable 
     marine and freshwater resources from exotic pests. But only 
     support from a broad political spectrum and diverse 
     geographic regions can assure enactment.

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join as an original 
cosponsor of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, to address the 
serious threat posed by nonindigenous aquatic species entering the U.S. 
waters from the exchange of ballast water. I want to thank and commend 
my colleague, Senator Glenn, for his leadership in crafting this very 
important legislation.
  The introduction of nonindigenous species through the exchange of 
ballast water is a serious national and international problem with 
potentially profound economic and environmental consequences. These 
invasive species, such as the zebra mussel, have already caused 
millions of dollars in damage to municipal and industrial water intake 
pipes, and valuable fisheries throughout the United States and Canada. 
By the turn of the century, damage to aquatic ecosystems and public and 
private infrastructure is expected to be in the billions of dollars 
from the zebra mussel alone.
  In the Chesapeake Bay, our Nation's largest estuary, the threat of 
these invading species is particularly acute due to the extensive 
release of ballast water from foreign ports. Over 3 billion gallons of 
ballast water a year--more than any other east or west coast port--is 
released into the bay from ships calling at the ports of Baltimore and 
Norfolk. This water originates from 48 different foreign ports. An on-
going study by the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, one of 
foremost authorities on this issue, found that nearly 90 percent of the 
vessels sampled arriving at Chesapeake Bay ports had living organisms 
in their ballast water, placing the bay at very high risk from these 
potentially harmful species. Indeed, some scientists speculate that the 
diseases that devastated oyster stocks in the bay were introduced 
through the exchange of ballast water. It is estimated that there more 
than 100 exotic species now established in the bay, some of which are 
recent arrivals via ballast water discharge.
  The interstate and international nature of ballast-mediated invasions 
make it impractical for the individual States of the Chesapeake region 
to address this risk alone. Various interests

[[Page S3222]]

in the Chesapeake Bay community, as well as the State legislatures of 
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, are, in fact, seeking increased 
Federal action to address this important concern. I want to 
particularly commend the Chesapeake Bay Commission for focussing 
attention on this very important issue.
  Mr. President, this measure is an important step forward in 
understanding and managing the risks of ballast-mediated invasions. It 
incorporates provisions of legislation I introduced last year, S. 938, 
to study and manage ballast water releases in the Chesapeake Bay. It 
establishes national voluntary guidelines for vessels entering U.S. 
waters to reduce the probability of ballast transfers of these exotic 
species. It authorizes research, demonstration, and education programs 
to help prevent the introduction and spread of these species into our 
lakes, rivers, and bays. I urge my colleagues to join with us in 
support of this important legislation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues in 
introducing the National Invasive Species Act of 1996. This 
comprehensive bill includes the provisions of my Lake Champlain Zebra 
Mussel Control Act and is the vehicle which can help Vermont and other 
States wage war on exotic nuisance species like the zebra mussel.
  Mr. President, a tiny mussel the size of my thumbnail threatens to 
choke off 25 percent of Vermont's drinking water, clog our hatcheries, 
and unravel the Lake Champlain ecosystem. It was only three summers ago 
when the mussel was first discovered in the South Lake near Orwell, VT, 
by a young boy. Two years later, zebra mussel densities has reached 
134,000 larvae per cubit meter. The end is not in sight.
  We did not ask for them, but we got them. Now Vermont has to face the 
consequences of a problem that Vermont has been powerless to stop. The 
zebra mussel problem in Lake Champlain deserves immediate and swift 
action. This exotic pest poses a serious risk to the water resources 
throughout Vermont, economic opportunities along the lake, and the 
health and safety of the people of Vermont.
  This bill we are introducing today addresses a number of issues that 
can only be resolved through Federal coordination and cooperation. 
Millions of gallons of water are imported each day from foreign ports 
throughout the globe. One gallon can contain the seeds of an invasive 
species epidemic that can wipe out domestic species, ecosystems, and 
economic resources. Vermonters know this well through our experience 
with lampreys on trophy sportfish, millfoil throughout our lakes, and 
zebra mussels in Lake Champlain.
  The United States needs this bill now. Our inland and marine seaports 
are a ticking time bomb. The heart of this bill is a nationwide effort 
to control the transportation and discharge of ballast water from 
international cargo ships. One seaport cannot tackle this problem alone 
without risking their economic base. However, if every port works 
together, we can protect fisheries, marine resources, and ultimately 
taxpayers from the enormous cost of fighting an exotic nuisance 
species.
  The other major theme in this bill is a concerted effort to control 
exotic species once they have arrived and multiplied. This second theme 
is based largely on my bill, the Lake Champlain Zebra Mussel Control 
Act. In addition to highlighting the specific needs of Lake Champlain, 
my bill--and this bill--includes a three point plan for tackling exotic 
species.
  First, establishes national voluntary guidelines for recreational 
boaters who are a major mechanism for the spread of zebra mussels and 
other exotics within the United States freshwater bodies.
  Second, allows states to work cooperatively on watershed approaches 
to attack this problem. If Vermont devotes millions of dollars to this 
effort and our neighbors do nothing, the effort will be futile.
  Third, reauthorizes and enhances the Federal authority for agencies 
to fight exotics. The nuisance species problem crosses many 
jurisdictions. Therefore, the comprehensive strategy set forth in this 
bill includes the Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection 
Agency, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Commerce, the 
Coast Guard, the Smithsonian, and other Federal efforts. As our Federal 
foot soldiers in this war against the zebra mussel and other species, 
all of these departments and agencies need the authority, resources, 
and flexibility to win the battle.
  Mr. President, every minute that we delay an effort to stop the zebra 
mussels, the mussels multiply exponentially and risk the physical and 
economic health of Vermont. While my colleagues may not know first hand 
the scourge of zebra mussels or other exotic species, let me assure 
them that the ounce of prevention in my bill will save them pounds of 
cure. To turn our backs on this problem of national significance only 
guarantees that it gets much worse. Mr. President, I hope we can move 
this bill quickly.
                                 ______