[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 35 (Wednesday, March 5, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3178-S3181]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. DeWine, Ms. Stabenow, 
        Mr. Reed, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Leahy, 
        Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Warner, Mr. Akaka, Mr. 
        Fitzgerald, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Bayh):
  S. 525. A bill to amend the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention 
and Control Act of 1990 to reauthorize and improve that Act; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, my colleague from Maine, Senator 
Collins and I are very pleased to introduce the National Aquatic 
Invasive Species Act of 2003. This bill, which reauthorizes the 
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, takes a 
comprehensive approach towards addressing aquatic nuisance species to 
protect the Nation's waters. This bill deals with the prevention of new 
introductions, the screening of new aquatic organisms coming into the 
country, the rapid response to new invasions, and the research to 
implement the provisions of this bill.
  The problem of invasive species is a very real one. Over the past 450 
years, during colonization and development of this country, more than 
6,500 nonindigenous invasive species have been introduced into the 
United States and have become established, self-sustaining populations. 
These species--from microorganisms to mollusks, from pathogens to 
plants, from insects to fish to animals--typically encounter few, if 
any, natural enemies in their new environments and wreak havoc on 
native species. Aquatic nuisance species threaten biodiversity 
nationwide, especially in the Great Lakes.
  Some of my colleagues may remember that back in the late eighties, 
the problem of aquatic nuisance species was first raised after the 
zebra mussel was released into the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes still 
have zebra mussels, and now, 20 States are fighting to control them. 
Zebra mussels were carried over from the Mediterranean to the Great 
Lakes in the ballast tanks of ships. The leading pathway for aquatic 
invasive species is maritime commerce. Most invasive species are 
contained in the water that ships use for ballast. Aquatic invaders 
such as the zebra mussel and round goby were introduced into the Great 
Lakes when ships, often from halfway around the world, pulled into port 
and discharged their ballast water. Aquatic invaders can also attach 
themselves to ships' hulls and anchor chains.
  Because of the impact that the zebra mussel had in the Great Lakes, 
Congress passed legislation in 1990 and 1996 that have reduced, but not 
eliminated, the threat of new invasions by requiring ballast water 
management for ships entering the Great Lakes. Today, there is a 
mandatory ballast water management program in the Great Lakes. The 
current law requires that ships entering the Great Lakes must exchange 
their ballast water, seal their ballast tanks or use alternative 
treatment that is ``as effective as ballast water exchange.'' 
Unfortunately, the effectiveness of ballast water exchange has been 
left undefined. Consequently, alternative treatments have not been 
fully developed and widely tested on ships because the developers of 
ballast technology do not know what standard

[[Page S3179]]

they are trying to achieve. This obstacle is serious because 
ultimately, only onboard ballast water treatment will adequately reduce 
the threat of new aquatic nuisance species being introduced through 
ballast water.
  Our bill rectifies this problem. First, this bill establishes 
deadlines for national interim and final standards for ballast water 
management. This way, technology vendors and the maritime industry know 
when to expect clear requirements. Second, our bill establishes what 
the phrase ``as effective as ballast water exchange'' means for the 
purposes of the interim period. Research has shown that ballast water 
exchange has highly variable effectiveness rates. This bill takes the 
maximum effectiveness that ballast water exchange could have using the 
safest approach--a 95-percent reduction of near coastal plankton and 
establishes it as the floor for treatment effectiveness which is a 95 
percent kill or removal of live organisms. Within 18 months of the 
bill's passage, the Coast Guard is required to issue regulations 
implementing an interim ballast water standard that would require ships 
that enter any U.S. port after operating outside the Exclusive Economic 
Zone of 200 miles to either use ballast water treatment technology that 
meets the standard, retain the ship's ballast water, or exchange the 
ship's ballast water in the high seas. Ships operating in coastal 
waters would not be required to manage ballast water during the interim 
standard.
  A 95-percent reduction of organisms will be the interim standard used 
for treatment technology until the EPA, with the concurrence of the 
Coast Guard, promulgates the final standard. This interim standard is 
not intended to be implemented for the long run, and it is not perfect. 
However, a final standard is difficult to set today or in the near 
future because of the limited research that has been conducted on how 
clean or sterile ballast water discharge should be, what is the best 
expression of a standard, and what is technologically achievable. 
Rather than wait many more years before taking action to stop new 
introductions, I believe that an imperfect but clear and achievable 
interim standard for treatment technology is the right approach. This 
interim standard will lead to the use of ballast treatments that are 
more protective of our waters than the default method of ballast water 
exchange provides, and it can be implemented in the very near future. 
Further, the bill provides the Coast Guard with the flexibility to 
promulgate the interim standard using a size-based standard or by 
whatever parameters the Coast Guard determines appropriate.
  I understand that ballast water technologies are being researched and 
are ready to be tested onboard ships. These technologies include 
ultraviolet lights, filters, chemicals, deoxygenation, and several 
others. Each of these technologies has a different pricetag attached to 
it. It is not my intention to overburden the maritime industry with an 
expensive requirement to install technology. In fact, the legislation 
states that the final ballast water technology standard must be based 
on ``best available technology economically achievable.'' That means 
that the EPA must consider what technology is available, and if there 
is not economically achievable technology available to a class of 
vessels, then the standard will not require ballast technology for that 
class of vessels, subject to review every 3 years. I do not believe 
this will be the case, however, because the approach creates a clear 
incentive for treatment vendors to develop affordable equipment for the 
market. Since ballast technology will be always evolving, it is 
important that the EPA review and revise the standard so that it 
reflects what is the best technology currently available and whether it 
is economically achievable. Shipowners cannot be expected to upgrade 
their equipment upon every few years as technology develops, however, 
so the law provides an approval period of at least 10 years.
  There are other important provisions of the bill as well. The bill 
requires the Army Corps of Engineers to construct and operate the 
Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal project which includes the construction 
of a second dispersal barrier to keep species like the Asian carp from 
migrating up the Mississippi through the canal into the Great Lakes. 
Equally important, this barrier will prevent the migration of invasive 
species in the Great Lakes from proceeding into the Mississippi system. 
The bill establishes an experimental ballast treatment approval process 
to take effect immediately so that the treatment technology industry 
can begin full-scale experimental installations of treatments on ships. 
The bill authorizes additional funding for better coordinated research 
to find effective means of combating invasive species. It would help 
Federal, State, and regional authorities guard against future invasions 
by developing early detection monitoring and rapid response plans. And 
it provides funding for outreach and education programs to inform the 
public and marina owners about the dangers of inadvertently carrying 
aquatic invaders on the hulls of recreational boats or dumping bait 
buckets into the Lakes.
  Invasive species threaten the region's biological diversity and are 
an economic drain. Estimates of the annual economic damage caused 
nationwide by invasive species go as high as $137 billion. Because of 
the system of canals connecting the Great Lakes to the Mississippi 
River and the Atlantic Ocean, there are no physical barriers to block 
the spread of invasive species, making the Great Lakes highly 
vulnerable. Because of the frequency of ships entering into the Great 
Lakes, though, our region is often ``ground zero,'' and once an exotic 
species establishes itself, it is almost impossible to eradicate and 
sometimes difficult to prevent from moving throughout the nation. 
Therefore, prevention is the key to controlling new introductions.
  All in all, the bill would cost between $160 million and $170 million 
each year. This is a lot of money, but it is a critical investment. As 
those of us from the Great Lakes know, the economic damage that 
invasive species can cause is much greater. However, compared to the 
$137 billion annual cost of invasive species, the cost of this bill is 
minimal. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation 
and work to move the bill swiftly through the Senate.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, from Pickerel Pond to Lake Auburn, from 
Sebago Lake to Bryant Pond, lakes and ponds in Maine are under attack. 
Aquatic invasive species threaten Maine's drinking water system, 
recreation, wildlife habitat, lakefront real estate, and fisheries. 
Plants, such as variable leaf milfoil, are crowding out native species. 
Invasive Asian shore crabs are taking over southern New England's tidal 
pools, and just last year began their advance into Maine--to the 
potential detriment of Maine's lobster and clam industries.
  Maine and many other States are attempting to fight back against 
these invasions. Unfortunately, their efforts have frequently been of 
limited success. As with national security, protecting the integrity of 
our lakes, streams, and coastlines from invading species cannot be 
accomplished by individual States alone. We need a uniform, nationwide 
approach to deal effectively with invasive species.
  Today I am pleased to join Senator Levin in introducing the National 
Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003. This bill would create the most 
comprehensive nationwide approach to date for combating alien species 
that invade our shores.
  The stakes are high when invasive species are unintentionally 
introduced into our Nation's waters. They endanger ecosystems, reduce 
biodiversity, and threaten native species. They disrupt people's lives 
and livelihoods by lowering property values, impairing commercial 
fishing and aquaculture, degrading recreational experiences, and 
damaging public water supplies.
  In the 1950s, European green crabs swarmed the Maine coast and 
literally ate the bottom out of Maine's soft-shell clam industry by the 
1980s. Many clam diggers were forced to go after other fisheries or 
find new vocations. In just one decade, this invader reduced the number 
of clam diggers in Maine from nearly 5,000 in the 1940s to fewer than 
1500 in the 1950s. European green crabs currently cost an estimated $44 
million a year in damage and control efforts in the United States.
  Past invasions forewarn of the long-term consequences to our 
environment and communities unless we take steps to prevent new 
invasions. It is too late

[[Page S3180]]

to stop European green crabs from taking hold on the east coast, but we 
still have the opportunity to prevent many other species from taking 
hold in Maine and the United States.
  Three months ago, in the town of Limerick, ME, one of North America's 
most aggressive invasive species--hydrilla--was found in Pickeral Pond. 
Hydrilla can quickly dominate its new ecosystem--already hydrilla 
covers 60 percent of the bottom of Pickerel Pond from the shoreline out 
to 6 feet deep. Never before detected in Maine, this stubborn and fast-
growing aquatic plant threatens Pickerel Pond's recreational use for 
swimmers and boaters, and could spread to nearby lakes and ponds. 
Unfortunately, eradication of hydrilla is nearly impossible, so we must 
now work to prevent further infestation in the State.

  The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003 is the most 
comprehensive effort ever to address the threat of invasive species. By 
authorizing $836 million over 6 years, this legislation would open 
numerous new fronts in our war against invasive species. The bill 
directs the Coast Guard to develop regulations that will end the easy 
cruise of invasive species into U.S. waters through the ballast water 
of international ships, and would provide the Coast Guard with $6 
million per year to develop and implement these regulations.
  The bill also would provide $30 million per year for a grant program 
to assist State efforts to prevent the spread of invasive species. It 
would provide $12 million per year for the Army Corps of Engineers and 
Fish and Wildlife Service to contain and control invasive species. 
Finally, the Levin-Collins bill would authorize $30 million annually 
for research, education, and outreach.
  The most effective means of stopping invading species is to attack 
them before they attack us. We need an early alert, rapid response 
system to combat invading species before they have a chance to take 
hold. For the first time, this bill would establish a national 
monitoring network to detect newly introduced species, while providing 
$25 million to the Secretary of the Interior to create a rapid response 
fund to help States and regions respond quickly once invasive species 
have been detected. This bill is our best effort at preventing the next 
wave of invasive species from taking hold and decimating industries and 
destroying waterways in Maine and throughout the country.
  One of the leading pathways for the introduction of aquatic organisms 
to U.S. waters from abroad is through transoceanic vessels. Commercial 
vessels fill and release ballast tanks with seawater as a means of 
stabilization. The ballast water contains live organisms from plankton 
to adult fish that are transported and released through this pathway. 
The bill we are introducing today would establish a framework to 
prevent the introduction of aquatic invasive species by ships.
  Currently, the U.S. is in negotiations with the international 
community on the development and implementation of an international 
program for preventing the unintentional introduction and spread of 
non-indigenous species through ballast water. I commend American 
negotiators for working with the international community to address 
this global problem. This legislation offers a strong framework that 
the U.S. should use as a model in negotiating this important 
international convention. The U.S. Government must ensure that the 
international convention will be at least as protective as the 
legislation we are introducing today. The United States must take the 
most protective action possible to protect our waters, ecosystems, and 
industries from destructive invasive species before it is too late.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I would like to express my strong 
support for the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003, NAISA.
  During the 107th Congress, I introduced S. 1034, the Great Lakes 
Ecology Protection Act which sought to curb the influx of invasive 
species into the Great Lakes. This is an immense task, as more then 87 
nonindigenous aquatic species have been accidentally introduced into 
the Great Lakes in the past century. I am proud to say that this bill 
had strong bipartisan support with 12 Great Lakes Senators as original 
cosponsors.
  Today, I am proud to join Senator Levin as an original cosponsor of 
NIASA which will provide a national strategy for preventing invasive 
species from being introduced in the Great Lakes and our Nation's 
waters. I am pleased that NIASA incorporates many of the ideas from the 
Great Lakes Ecology Protection Act in formulating a national standard.
  Invasive species have had a devastating economic and ecological 
impact on the United States. They have already damaged the Great Lakes 
in a number of ways. They have destroyed thousands of fish and 
threatened our clean drinking water.
  For example, Lake Michigan once housed the largest self-producing 
lake trout fishery in the entire world. The invasive sea lamprey, which 
was introduced from ballast water almost 80 years ago, has contributed 
greatly to the decline of trout and whitefish in the Great Lakes by 
feeding on and killing native trout species.
  Today, lake trout must be stocked because they cannot naturally 
reproduce in the lake. Many Great Lakes States have had to place severe 
restrictions on catching yellow perch because invasive species such as 
the zebra mussel disrupt the Great Lakes' ecosystem and compete with 
yellow perch for food. The zebra mussel's filtration also increases 
water clarity, which may be making is easier for predators to prey upon 
the yellow perch. Moreover, tiny organisms like zooplankton that help 
form the base of the Great Lakes food chain, have declined due to 
consumption by exploding populations of zebra mussels.
  We have made progress on preventing the spread of invasive species, 
but we have not yet solved this problem. NIASA will create a mandatory 
national ballast water management program to prevent the introduction 
of invasive species into our waters, as well as, encourage the 
development of new ballast treatment technology to eliminate invasive 
species. NIASA also will greatly increase research funding for these 
treatment and prevention technologies, and provide necessary funding 
and resources for invasive species rapid response plans. In addition, 
the bill will increase outreach and education to recreational boaters 
and the general public on how to prevent the spread of invasive 
species.
  As Members of the U.S. Congress, we have a responsibility to share in 
the stewardship of our Nation's natural resources. As a Great Lakes 
Senator, I feel a particularly strong responsibility to protect a 
resource that is not only a source of clean drinking water for more 
than 30 million people in the Great Lakes, but is vital to Michigan's 
economy and environment. I am proud to support a bill that will provide 
innovative solutions and necessary resources to this longstanding 
environmental problem, and will also protect our precious water 
resources for the enjoyment and benefit of future generation of 
Americans.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, 
Senator Levin and Senator Snowe in introducing the ``National Aquatic 
Invasive Species Act of 2003.''
  The waters of the United States continue to face threats from aquatic 
invasive species. Invasive species take both an economic and an 
environmental toll. The United States and Canada are spending $14 
million a year just to try to control sea lamprey, a species that has 
invaded Lake Champlain and the Great Lakes. The environmental costs are 
also staggering. Invasive species usually have high reproductive rates, 
disperse easily, and can tolerate a wide range of environmental 
conditions, making them very difficult to eradicate. They often lack 
predators in their new environment and out-compete native species for 
prey or breeding sites.
  The legislation we are introducing today will build on programs 
established over the last decade and focus much of our attention and 
resources on preventing invasive species from entering our aquatic 
ecosystems. This legislation establishes a mandatory ballast water 
management program for the entire country; makes federal funds and 
resources available for rapid response to the introduction of invasive 
species and for prevention, control and research.
  Increased funding and resources for dispersal barrier projects and 
research to prevent the interbasin transfer of

[[Page S3181]]

organisms is of particular importance in my State of Vermont. We, along 
with New York, are home to one of this country's most beautiful lakes--
Lake Champlain. However, zebra mussels, Eurasian water milfoil, water 
chestnuts, and sea lamprey have invaded Lake Champlain and are having a 
devastating impact. Like most who visit Lake Champlain, these species 
want to call it home, but we cannot compromise the health of the lake. 
Examining the feasibility and effectiveness of a dispersal barrier in 
the Lake Champlain Canal to control the dispersal of invasive species 
in the lake is another avenue toward preventing further destructive 
dispersal of these species.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Environment and 
Public Works Committee and in the Senate to move this important 
legislation forward.
                                 ______