[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 141 (Thursday, October 3, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12398-S12401]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 NATIONAL INVASIVE SPECIES ACT OF 1996

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 4283 be 
referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works, the bill be 
immediately discharged and referred to the Committee on Science, 
Commerce and Transportation, and the bill then be immediately 
discharged and the Senate proceed to its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4283) 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise to support adoption of H.R. 4283, 
the National Invasive Species Act of 1996.
  Mr. President, this bill addresses a nationwide problem--
nonindigenous species invading new habitats. This has tremendous 
impacts not only on natives species in the aquatic environment but, in 
some areas, our communities as well.
  This bill would control nonindigenous species by establishing a 
voluntary national ballast water management program, and funding for 
research and implementation.
  Earlier this year, Senator Glenn had introduced S. 1660, a similar 
bill to that of the House. Under an earlier unanimous-consent 
agreement, S. 1660 was referred to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works. Following action in that committee, the bill would have 
been referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
since the Commerce Committee shares jurisdiction on this issue. 
Likewise, H.R. 3217, a bill introduced by Congressman LaTourette was 
adopted by the House, sent to the Senate and referred to the 
Environment and Public Works Committee. This bill, if acted upon, would 
have also been referred to the Committee Committee.
  Mr. President, while this procedure is somewhat different than our 
normal order for legislation, Senator Abraham, a member of the Commerce 
Committee, has been very interested in addressing this issue. I am 
pleased that we are able to accommodate his desires by adopting this 
bill today.
  The bill that the House adopted addresses a concern of the Commerce 
Committee on vessel safety that the shipping industry has raised. It 
would simply allow vessels to continue to discharge their ballast water 
in a harbor if during their voyage they could not exchange their 
ballast water on the high seas due to safety concerns. This provision 
and the bill itself has the support of the shipping industry, port 
authorities and the U.S. Coast Guard.
  In closing, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the 
adoption of H.R. 4283.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to say a few 
words on final passage of H.R. 4283, the National Invasive Species Act 
of 1996.
  The threat posed by nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species was first 
brought to this Nation's attention in the 1980's when we witnessed the 
devastating effect of the zebra mussel infestation in the Great Lakes 
region. It was then that we learned such nuisance species are typically 
introduced through the ballast water exchange of vessels. Congress 
responded to this threat with the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance 
Prevention and Control Act of 1990--legislation which established a 
program to research, prevent, and control the unintentional 
introduction of nonindigenous species into the Great Lakes.
  Clearly, the problem of nuisance species is not limited to the Great 
Lakes. Invasions of nonindigenous species into marine and fresh waters 
of the United States can have significant economic and environmental 
consequences. That is why the legislation approved by the Senate today 
goes beyond the Great Lakes region and establishes a voluntary program 
for ballast water management that is national in scope.
  Mr. President, I was deeply distressed to learn that non-native 
species have invaded the Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island. Recently, a 
number of invasive plant species have been discovered. Also, there is 
grave concern that the Japanese shore crab may have arrived. If that is 
the case, Rhode Island's oyster beds will be greatly disrupted.
  That is why the original version of this bill, H.R. 3217, was 
modified at my request to include an amendment authorizing the 
appropriation of $1 million for use by Rhode Island's Department of 
Environmental Management to address this problem. The pending bill, 
H.R. 4283, includes my amendment. These funds will allow the department 
to carry out research on the prevention, monitoring, and control of 
aquatic nuisance species in Narragansett Bay. It is imperative that we 
have a full inventory of the non-native species that have invaded the 
Bay. Once we have done so, we can work to manage the situation and 
hopefully, avoid future infestations.
  Mr. President, this is a good bill and I applaud the Senate for its 
prompt action. It is my hope that the National Invasive Species Act of 
1996 will stem the tide of invasive species in our Nation's waterways.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for passage 
of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 [NISA]. NISA reauthorizes 
and amends the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control 
Act of 1990, a measure that passed with wide bipartisan support in 
response to concern over the potential impact of the Eurasian ruffe on 
the Great Lakes fishery [NANPCA]. NANPCA set forth a national program 
for preventing, researching, monitoring, and controlling infestations 
in U.S. waters of alien aquatic species. NISA continues these important 
measures, and includes some additional important provisions.
  NISA directs the Department of Transportation to develop voluntary 
guidelines, recordkeeping and reporting procedures, and sampling 
techniques to prevent the introduction and spread of nonindigenous 
species into U.S. waters. Since, the primary means of prevention are 
measures addressing the exchange of ballast water, this legislation 
will develop suggested direction for ballast exchange outside the U.S. 
exclusive economic zone and will authorize ecological and ballast 
discharge surveys to be conducted in highly susceptible waters. In the 
effort to develop other ways to repel these unwelcome intruders, the 
Interior and Transportation Secretaries will undertake a demonstration 
of technologies and practices which may prevent the introduction and 
spread of such species. Finally, if the spread of the zebra mussel has 
demonstrated anything, it has shown us how important regional 
coordination is to the control of invasive animals. Therefore, this act 
encourages the formation of regional panels to participate in 
activities to control the introduction of aquatic nuisance species.
  Mr. President, the impact of invasive species in the Great Lakes has 
been enormous. In 1950, the Great Lakes fishery nearly collapsed under 
its assault. Were it not for the constant efforts of the Great Lakes 
Fisheries Commission and the Great Lakes Environmental Research 
Laboratory, a similarly dire situation could occur. Michigan in 
particular has suffered greatly from the effects of nonindigenous 
plants and animals. In my State, the uncontrollable spread of the zebra 
mussel shut down the Monroe city water supply for 2 days in 1990 and 
contributed to sewage overflow in Lake St. Clair. Without steps to curb 
the introduction and spread of such invasive species, the Great Lakes 
region, and other coastal States, can expect similar incidents in the 
future.
  The spread of the zebra mussel, the sea lamprey, and other invaders 
have had a proven, negative impact on Great Lakes native species. Mr. 
President, I was happy to join as a cosponsor of legislation to control 
their spread, and I hope that the Senate can pass this reasonable, 
voluntary approach to curbing these species today.

[[Page S12399]]

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 4283, the 
National Invasive Species Act of 1996 and urge my colleagues to join me 
in approving this measure. I authored and introduced S. 1660, the 
National Invasive Species Act, in cooperation with a broad community of 
interest groups and regional delegations. Nineteen fellow Senators, 
from both sides of the aisle joined me in gaining passage of this 
critical bill. I am particularly grateful to my Ohio colleague, 
Congressman Steve LaTourette, for his skilled leadership in introducing 
and gaining House passage of H.R. 4283, the companion to my bill, S. 
1660.
  The National Invasive Species Act of 1996 addresses the growing 
problem of the unintentional introduction of aquatic nuisance species 
into the waters of our Nation via the ballast water of vessels. The 
National Invasive Species Act will prevent the introduction of these 
pest species through the establishment of a national ballast management 
program. In addition, it will set up a national program of monitoring, 
management and control of invasive species already established in U.S. 
waters. The bill before us represents a consensus among interest 
groups. The environmental programs it sets forth are both reasonable 
and effective.
  In the Great Lakes region, we spend millions of dollars annually to 
battle sea lamprey and zebra mussel infestations, I can attest that 
such biological spills can and do happen elsewhere, their impacts on 
the receiving system are additive, and the resource degradation is 
permanent. 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. 
Wherever it becomes established, the zebra mussel threatens the economy 
and the environment. It clogs intake pipes, fouls drinking water, and 
covers swimming beaches with sharp shells. It has cost $120 million 
over 5 years in direct costs to the raw water industry of our region. 
The zebra mussel also contributed to the loss of many highly valued 
native species of freshwater mussel in both the Great Lakes and the 
Mississippi River.
  The Great Lakes are not the only entry way for invasive species into 
U.S. waters. In March, I hosted a National Forum on Nonindigenous 
Species Invasions of U.S. Marine and Fresh Waters. At the day-long 
event, experts from around the country cited serious species invasion 
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 the Pacific Northwest, San Francisco Bay, the Pacific 
Islands, the Gulf of Mexico, the Mississippi River, the Atlantic 
coasts, the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain. In particular, studies show 
that a new species of aquatic organism invades San Francisco Bay every 
12 weeks. A crab which is the host of a dangerous parasite has been 
found in U.S. waters within the Gulf of Mexico, fortunately not yet 
established.
  In 1990, I authored and Congress enacted 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: 
A regional program to prevent new introductions of species into the 
Great Lakes by the ballast water; and a national program of monitoring, 
management and control of invasive species once established in U.S. 
waters. Most of the revisions contained in H.R. 4283 revise the 
prevention portion of the act.
  As you know, ballast water is the leading vector for unintentional 
transfers of nonindigenous species into U.S. 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. 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 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 can greatly reduce 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, if applied where it can be employed safely, 
it would result in a substantial reduction in the risk of invasive 
species transfers into our waters. It is for this reason that the 
International Maritime Organization already encourages 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. This program has been highly 
successful.
  My 1996 proposal establishes a national ballast management program to 
begin to address concerns of other U.S. coastal regions. The Coast 
Guard is directed to issue 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 that this program puts safety first. The guidelines will protect 
the safety of vessel and crew, whatever that may entail.
  There will be no penalty against vessels which do not participate in 
the initial national program, though recordkeeping by vessels to 
document participation is required. However, in the interest of 
maintaining a level playing field nationally, 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. Thus, the maritime industry would see only one set of rules 
nationally. However, over time, there may be enforcement 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 demonstration 
program is established in the act. Over time new technologies and 
practices may replace ballast exchange as safer and more effective 
means of prevention. Other changes to the 1990 program which are 
contained in our National Invasive Species Act of 1996 include (1) 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; (2) voluntary guidelines to help recreational boaters to 
prevent unintentional transfer of zebra mussels; and (3) 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.

  Recent discussions with interest groups have revealed gaps in S. 
1660, which I have urged the lead sponsor of the House companion 
legislation, Congressman  Steve LaTourette, and my Senate colleagues to 
address. I am pleased that H.R. 4283 accommodates these concerns. For 
example, H.R. 4283 addresses the need for research on the fragile and 
precious natural resources of California, Rhode Island, and the 
Columbia River. Establishment of an ecological baseline and 
identification of alien species impacts in these regions will help us 
to ascertain whether our protection efforts are adequate.
  A second set of concerns arose from the maritime industry. Senator 
Johnston and I convened the leaders of this industry in Washington 
about a month ago to explore their position on the legislation and seek 
ways to increase

[[Page S12400]]

their level of support without compromising the effectiveness of the 
legislation. While their initial response was skeptical and critical of 
the potential for regulation within NISA, ultimately they agreed to the 
legislation if certain clarifications were made in the legislative 
language. These clarifications--already a matter of Coast Guard 
policy--concern the priority on vessel safety, international 
consistency, and he equitable treatment of foreign and U.S.-flag 
vessels.
  With respect to ship safety, the bill now explicitly gives sole 
discretion over safety to the ship master. The Coast Guard does not 
want to be put in the position of second-guessing the ship's master on 
safety, unless the call is not made in good faith. While the safety 
exemption clearly could still be exploited by those who simply do not 
want to undertake an exchange, ship masters have highly responsible 
positions and we would expect them to act responsibly with respect to 
these guidelines. In addition, by measuring the rate at which the 
safety exemption is utilized, we can gauge the extent to which the use 
of it may impede effective prevention of new invasions. We may find 
that alternative technologies should replace ballast exchange. H.R. 
4283 also assures that additional requirements will not be imposed upon 
vessels that exercise the safety exemption from national ballast 
exchange requirements. This provision does not affect the Great Lakes 
region, where an alternative exchange zone is already identified and 
convenient for vessels. For the national program, because alternatives 
are not yet identified, the Coast Guard is likely to encourage a vessel 
master using the safety exemption to attempt alternative actions to 
reduce the amount of unexchanged ballast that is discharged into one of 
our harbors, but leave the exercise of them to the master's discretion. 
In addition, the bill now explicitly requires the equal treatment of 
United States and foreign-flag operators and encourages consistency of 
our guidelines with any international regulatory regime established 
through the International Maritime Organization.
  Finally, to benefit all of us in assessing the adequacy of the 
program, the legislation includes a report to Congress by the Coast 
Guard after 2 years of implementation of the national guidelines. While 
it will consume some time, this report will assess for all to see, 
the rate of compliance by vessels, the extent to which the safety 
exemption has been utilized, the effectiveness of the guidelines at 
preventing new introductions of exotic species, and the regions--if 
any--in which the Coast Guard intends to enforce the guidelines due to 
poor compliance. The report will give Congress and the public a chance 
to review prevention program implementation and its effectiveness at 
meeting our resource protection and ship safety needs.

  In a last minute change, the House also included an exemption for 
crude oil tankers engaged in coastwise trade. Most of this trade takes 
place along the West Coast and while coast-wise, some of these vessels 
will exit the exclusive economic zone and ply the high-seas on their 
way to Alaska from Hawaii or California. I am happy to say Senator 
Stevens has included an amendment reflected in H.R. 4283 which 
evaluates the potential for upgrading a shore-side treatment facility, 
currently targeted at removing hydrocarbons from ballast water, for use 
in preventing non-native species transfer.
  I would like to close by pointing out that 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.
  Clearly, at this juncture, we do not have all the answers necessary 
to solve the problem of unintentional transfer of species via ballast 
water. H.R. 4283 has been carefully crafted to both generate and 
accommodate new information that will lead to rapid progress in 
protecting the natural resource wealth of our coasts. Unusual in the 
environmental arena, this issue offers us ``low-hanging fruit'' and 
bipartisan enthusiasm. I am grateful to my colleagues for joining in 
support of the National Invasive Species Act and urge enactment of this 
legislation this year.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, in order to protect our native aquatic 
plants and animals, we seek to pass H.R. 4283, the National Invasive 
Species Act of 1996. This bill amends the Nonindigenous Aquatic 
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-646), to 
establish a voluntary program to prevent the unintentional introduction 
of non-native invasive species through ballast water management. And, 
we will take one more step to manage to the best of our ability a 
particularly bad actor, the zebra mussel.
  By passing this bill, we will be one step closer to taking control of 
the most common way that non-native species come to the United States--
ballast water. Ballast water is carried in the holds of ships for 
stability as they travel empty or partly empty on the high seas. When 
the ships get to port, they discharge the water to make room for cargo.
  When ballast water is discharged, all of the species that were picked 
up in a foreign port are discharged with them. The zebra mussel came to 
the Great Lakes in this manner. And, the zebra mussel has now colonized 
the Mississippi River drainage and is headed both east and west.
  It turns out the zebra mussel, like many non-native invasive species, 
has ecological implications far wider than just its mere presence. This 
tiny clam--like organism attaches itself to any solid surface, 
including the shells of our native snails and clams. The natives are 
smothered by the newcomer. The newcomer, in its multitudes, feeds on 
microscopic plants and animals from the water, and thereby filters away 
all of the food for the native species.
  I am told that with the 2.4 million gallons of ballast water 
discharged into U.S. ports every hour comes every organism that was 
picked up elsewhere and that survived the trip. Fortunately for all of 
us, very few of the estimated 3,000 species of organisms in transit 
every day survive when they are discharged. But, when they do, we have 
the makings of serious trouble on our hands as in the case of the zebra 
mussel.
  Nearly every part of the country has been affected by this game of 
chance. From the Chesapeake Bay, to Honolulu Harbor, including San 
Francisco Bay, and many places in between the problems created by 
invasive non-native species are immense.
  This bill has been developed with the cooperation of the U.S. 
maritime industry and the U.S. port authorities. We have assured 
ourselves that the voluntary program for ballast water exchange will 
not cause unsafe conditions for our ships at sea. And we have been 
assured that this bill be extremely important in protecting our ports, 
water systems, and waterways from the economic impacts of invasive 
species.
  There is no intent to try to control intentional introductions of 
useful organisms, or invasive species in terrestrial environments 
through this bill. We recognize that non-native species have been 
tremendously beneficial to us by enhancing recreational opportunities 
such as sport fishing, providing reliable sources of protein through 
mariculture and aquaculture, and by improving human existence through 
the pet and aquarium trade.
  We understand perfectly well that intentional introductions are one 
thing, if they have been well studied, and have been introduced for a 
purpose. But, the game of roulette that is represented by ballast water 
introductions is something we cannot let continue.
  For example, late last year a 2-inch predatory shrimp native to China 
was found near Portland, Oregon in the Columbia River. What effect this 
new species will have on the Columbia and Snake River insect life is 
still to be determined. My fear is that they will deprive the migrating 
salmon smoults of important food sources while they work their way from 
their native streams to the sea. One thing the beleagured salmon and 
steelhead do not need at this time is another competitor for their food 
sources.
  There is evidence that unintentional introductions of non-native 
animals cause the endangerment of native species. One fisheries 
biologist, D.R. Lassuy estimates that non-native species contributed to 
68 percent of the

[[Page S12401]]

fish extinctions in the past 100 years, and the decline of 70 percent 
of the fish species listed by the Endangered Species Act.
  But what is known about the effect of non-native invasive species is 
greater still. For example, it is thought by many accidentally 
introduced New Zealand mud snails have contributed directly to the 
decline of the native fauna in the Snake River, and led to the proposal 
to list at least one of the Snake River snails as endangered.
  We hope that the Senate will quickly pass H.R. 4283. By passing this 
bill we will take one very important step to protect our aquatic 
habitats from non-native species.


                            ballast exchange

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, a priority for me in the National Invasive 
Species Act has been to establish a ballast technology demonstration 
program to usher in the development of safer and more reliable 
alternatives to ballast exchange. I note that in H.R. 4283, the 
Secretary of Interior and the Administrator of the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration implement this important program in 
cooperation with the Secretary of Transportation Administration. I 
believe the Secretary of Transportation should involve its Office of 
Shipbuilding and Technology which already has years of experience in 
ballast technology in this program.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Involvement of that office will be important to build 
upon past experience in ballast technology development and I also urge 
its involvement.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, which 
provides for the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, be deemed read 
a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at the 
appropriate place in the Record.
  The bill (H.R. 4283) was deemed read the third time and passed.

                          ____________________