[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 17, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2194-S2195]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Coast Guard Authorization Bill

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I rise to talk about an issue that 
is extremely important to my State of Michigan. In Michigan, we take 
great pride in the fact that we are never more than 6 miles from a body 
of water or more than 85 miles from one of our incredibly amazing Great 
Lakes.
  In fact, one out of five jobs in Michigan in some way is tied to the 
water. So this is really about who we are. It is in our DNA in Michigan 
when we talk about the Great Lakes. In terms of the country, it is 
important for all of us to care about the Great Lakes because 95 
percent of the surface fresh water in the United States is in the Great 
Lakes. It is 20 percent of the world's fresh water, but 95 percent of 
our fresh water in the United States is in the Great Lakes. Through our 
Great Lakes Task Force, we are always working together. All the 
Senators and House Members around the Great Lakes have a special 
responsibility to step up and protect them, but we all should care 
because of the incredible natural resources they provide.
  Unfortunately, perhaps no other body of water in the United States 
has been as harmed by invasive species as the Great Lakes. It is 
ballast water that has brought the majority of these invasive species 
into the Great Lakes. They are first brought in from salt water into 
the Great Lakes, and then they are moved around within the Great Lakes 
after they get there.
  I am very concerned about legislation in front of us that would 
weaken our ability to protect the Great Lakes. We need to do everything 
we can to maintain strong ballast water standards and maintain what we 
need to under the Clean Water Act to protect the waters. It is 
incredibly important for me to speak out, along with my colleagues, 
about what is in front of us.
  I strongly support the Coast Guard bill. In fact, I strongly support 
the Coast Guard. I think we have the best and the brightest in the 
Michigan Coast Guard. I am very proud of them, but I am deeply opposed 
to attaching a bill to that critical legislation that would undermine 
our ability to fight invasive species under the Clean Water Act and 
that would take away the rights of our States to be able to protect our 
waters.
  This new version of what has been dubbed VIDA, or the Vessel 
Incidental Discharge Act, requires the Coast Guard to set ballast water 
standards in consultation with the EPA, but it has always been in 
reverse. The Coast Guard is not responsible for the protections. They 
do fantastic work, but it is not their job in terms of water quality. 
That is the EPA. Unfortunately, this legislation that has been attached 
to the Coast Guard bill removes the authority to regulate ballast water 
discharges under the Clean Water Act. That is a problem for a lot of 
reasons.
  First of all, it means that States like the Great Lakes State of 
Michigan will see our authority to set standards disappear, repealing 
what the State of Michigan--the Governor of the State and the 
legislature--has done over the years to protect the water that 
literally surrounds our peninsula. It means that legal challenges to 
ensure strong standards will be curtailed as well.
  Why is this important?
  Legal action under the Clean Water Act has arguably been the primary 
driver for requiring new ballast water standards. Preventing invasive 
species from hitching a ride in ballast water is really a big deal. In 
fact, the cost of fighting invasive species nationwide is about $120 
billion every year. In Michigan, we are spending anywhere up to $800 
million a year dealing with invasive species that are already here. One 
of our big nightmares is that Asian carp that have been coming up the 
Mississippi and Illinois Rivers will hit the Great Lakes. If we don't 
have the capacity to do what we need to do there, it is going to be a 
disaster for the Great Lakes.

  Let me also say that on the Great Lakes, we have what we call our 
lakers, which are huge cargo vessels. If you have been to the Great 
Lakes, you can look out at it. It looks like you are looking at the 
ocean with big barges. We call the Great Lakes, of course, the ocean 
without the salt or sharks. We have barges.
  I have been a strong supporter of the lakers. They are vital to our 
economy, and they really do a wonderful job. But unfortunately, when we 
look at protecting the Great Lakes, giving a de facto exemption, which 
is in this bill, from these vessels ever having to be required to 
install ballast water control technologies is not in the interest of 
protecting our waters.
  The good news is that, as the lakers travel within the Great Lakes, 
they aren't bringing in the salt water ballast, but, unfortunately, 
they move them around. We saw this with zebra mussels that were in the 
lower part of the Great Lakes. Unfortunately, they get moved around all 
the way up to Lake Superior because of the vessels that are moving. It 
does make a difference having those standards.
  Beyond the ballast water though, one of the things that I just 
recently found out about this addition to the Coast Guard bill that is 
concerning in a very large way, on top of all this, is that it not only 
curtails State ballast water laws, but many States have regulations to 
limit other discharges of oils and chemicals and so on. Often times, 
these rules are in place to protect sensitive areas like oyster beds or 
corals, which, again, are out in the salt water. For us, this is about 
the fact that it would remove the ability for States to regulate other 
harmful chemicals.
  I will give you one example that is becoming a nightmare for us in 
Michigan. I think it will eventually be in every State. That is a 
runoff of a regulated type of foam that has been used

[[Page S2195]]

forever in fire suppression. There is a group of chemicals that they 
dump called PFOS. That is the acronym. We have fire suppression 
equipment that has been used at training facilities and others on our 
Air Force bases, Army bases, National Guard bases, and so on, for a 
long time. It is not used anymore. On the west side of Michigan, we 
have private companies making footwear and other kinds of products 
where these water-resistant chemicals have been used in all kinds of 
ways for a long time.
  Across the country, States like Michigan are struggling to address 
serious contamination of drinking water caused by a chemical that has 
been used in this firefighting foam. At our National Guard training 
center, Camp Grayling in Northern Michigan--which is the largest one in 
the country for the National Guard--we have a beautiful lake. We have a 
lot of lakes. This beautiful lake is in the middle of this very large 
facility. We now see this foam flowing on top of the water. For people 
with private property around the lake, this foam chemical now is 
floating on top of the water. The townships are looking at ways that 
they can go from individual wells to some kind of municipal water 
system, but it is touching every part of Michigan. My guess is that 
before it is done, because these types of foams were used all over the 
country, we are going to see it everywhere, and we are going to have 
real challenges.
  I am very appreciative that the Department of Defense appropriations 
money was added for a study to look at the broader safety issues and 
public health issues that relate to this so we know that the right 
standards are set. There are standards now, but we need to be looking 
more deeply at the impacts on ground water and so on. We are going to 
have a lot of remediation to do for the public sector as well as 
private sector.
  Here is the problem. This bill says that States can no longer issue 
any regulation on the use of these foams which may contain toxic 
substances. It is not only ballast water that we care deeply about. 
States that don't have the beautiful Great Lakes around them or our 
coastlines are impacted by these toxic substances that we are finding 
more of every day--these chemicals that were used everywhere. I am sure 
people thought they were safe when they were using them. Now we are 
finding out they were not, and they have a huge impact.
  This is especially problematic when the States--not the Federal 
Government--are on the frontline in addressing this new awareness of 
citizens about the impact of the ground water contamination. This bill 
would take away the capacity for States to be able to act. I don't 
think any of the supporters of the bill intended for this to happen. In 
fact, many of the proponents of the bill have been leaders in the 
effort in the Senate to address these chemicals.
  I urge us to take a step back, and before voting to proceed to concur 
with this, that we take a step back together and take a look at the 
broader implications of the way this language is put together. I 
strongly support the Coast Guard bill. I think everybody here is going 
to regret it if this moves forward with this additional language. 
Certainly, I am not going to support it. Because of the ballast water 
concerns alone, I would not. But you add on top of that taking away the 
State's capacity to be able to address these toxic chemicals that we 
are now finding everywhere--not only in Michigan, but across the 
country--and I think they should be sending off alarm bells to 
everyone.
  I know that Senator Carper and the EPW Committee have been working on 
a real solution to address this issue. I personally think we can do 
that on a bipartisan basis. I hope we will.
  This is a vote, I think, that many will regret down the road as this 
PFOS chemical contamination becomes more widespread. The firefighting 
foam wasn't just used in Michigan or in a few States. It was around the 
country. I think taking away the State's ability to be able to address 
that in their State is a very serious issue. I would urge my colleagues 
to vote no on this motion. Let us go back and take another look at it 
and figure out some different language. Certainly, we all support the 
Coast Guard. If we want to take VIDA out and do the Coast Guard bill, 
that is great. If we want to look at the issues around VIDA--and I 
appreciate the concerns around that--let's do it in a way that makes 
sense for the people we represent and the States who need to be able to 
act now. In Michigan, this has become a huge issue around this group of 
toxic chemicals.
  I urge a ``no'' vote. Whenever we vote--I believe it may be 
tomorrow--I hope that we take a step back and work together to get this 
right.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.