[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12466-S12467]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               THE NEED FOR BALLAST MANAGEMENT--H.R. 4283

 Mr. GLENN. I thank the Senator from South Dakota for his 
efforts in responding to the urgent national need for ballast 
management to prevent unintentional introduction of nonnative species 
into U.S. waters. As you know, some Senators raised concerns about the 
initial House-passed version of the National Invasive Species Act [H.R. 
3217] because it does not give assurance that onerous requirements will 
not be imposed upon vessels that exercise the safety exemption from 
national ballast exchange requirements. This version, [H.R. 4283], 
rectifies that problem. The Great Lakes Program which already leaves 
sole discretion over safety to the ship master, and already requires 
alternatives if high seas exchange is not possible, will not be 
affected by this amendment. I ask the Senator, is it his opinion that 
the Coast Guard will actively seek to identify alternatives of which 
vessels may avail themselves in other coastal regions, and will it 
request vessels to conduct these alternative precautions on a voluntary 
basis in the new national program?
  Mr. PRESSLER. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
Science and Transportation that has jurisdiction of the U.S. Coast 
Guard, I would expect the Coast Guard to actively seek alternatives 
applicable to other regions, routinely identify those alternatives to 
ballast exchange for vessels which use the safety exemption, and 
encourage their use prior to discharging unexchanged water in the port 
of call.
  Mr. GLENN. I also ask the Senator, if he believes that the Coast 
Guard will keep careful records regarding the extent to which the 
safety exemption is utilized, under what circumstances, and the extent 
to which vessels attempt in good faith to use alternatives that may be 
identified?
  Mr. PRESSLER. Yes, I expect the Coast Guard to include each of those 
items in its reporting requirements, and to include a careful 
assessment of those matters in its report to Congress so that Congress 
can make decisions regarding the impact of this exemption and the need 
for revision of the law.
  Mr. GLENN. As I mentioned, the Great Lakes Program currently requires 
alternatives to ballast exchange if high seas exchange is not possible 
due to safety concerns. While these alternatives are not overly 
onerous, I can understand industry's concern in other regions where the 
alternatives have not yet been developed.
  A cooperative relationship between the Committee of Environment and 
Public Works at the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation 
is crucial to the passage of this legislation and its effective 
implementation. I hope that these two Committees that share 
jurisdiction over this issue continue to work together to evaluate 
progress under the National Invasive Species Act.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I look forward to a continued cooperative relationship 
between the two committees as well as with the bill author and 
cosponsors.
  Mr. GLENN. H.R. 4283 includes an exemption from the National Ballast 
Management Program for crude oil tankers engaged in coastwise trade. 
While the majority of this trade is conducted between Hawaii and 
Alaska, the risk to receiving waters of ballast water from these 
vessels may be significant. As the Senator knows, there is concern that 
fish pathogens may have been transported to Alaskan waters via this 
trade. I would hope that every effort will be made to study the 
baseline conditions of the Prince William Sound ecosystem to assure 
that invasive species problems in fact have

[[Page S12467]]

not been arising from this trade, and will not arise in the future.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I join the Senator in urging such a study.

                          ____________________