[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 12]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 17978-17979]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    HUIZENGA AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2838

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. GWEN MOORE

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 17, 2011

  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express concerns with the Huizenga 
amendment to H.R. 2838 and my fear that it could result in great damage 
to the efforts underway here in Congress to protect the Great Lakes 
from the many threats it faces, including invasive species and 
pollution.
  There is no question that addressing the invasive species in ballast 
water is needed to protect the Great Lakes and other water bodies from 
these aggressive nonnative species

[[Page 17979]]

that can destroy the natural ecosystem. Once these species are 
introduced, the costs to the environment and taxpayers only grow. Just 
look at the costs to the Great Lake states and the federal government 
to fight the sea lamprey and the current battle to keep the Asian Carp 
out of the Great Lakes. A strong federal ballast water treatment 
standard protects both the environment and the taxpayer.
  We know ballast water is a primary vector for the introduction of 
invasive species. The bill before us would set a needed national 
ballast water treatment standard to protect our nation's waters. 
However, the Huizenga amendment would create one large loophole that 
would allow ``historic'' vessels to be excluded from complying with the 
new standards.
  No science has been put forward to this body showing that these 
vessels--because of their historic nature--are not an avenue of 
introduction for aquatic invasive species. We should be less concerned 
about the historic nature of the vessel and more about the potential 
menace caused by hitchhikers in their ballast water. I don't have a 
problem with recognizing history or historic vessels. I just have a 
problem with absolving them from making efforts to prevent a historic 
invasion of nonnative species.
  Invasive species do not care about the character of the vessel 
through which they are brought into the Great Lakes and neither should 
any national ballast water treatment standard. I note the recent 
editorial by the Chicago Tribune about the failings of this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to work to make sure that this amendment is not 
included in a final bill as it would undermine long needed efforts to 
create a strong and effective national ballast water standard and 
ensure strong protections for our nation's bodies of water, including 
the Great Lakes.

                [From chicagotribune.com, Nov. 15, 2011]

                       Sink the Badger (Proposal)

       Every day from May to October, the SS Badger, the last 
     coal-powered steamship on the Great Lakes, ferries cars and 
     tourists across Lake Michigan on a picturesque four-hour 
     journey from Manitowoc, Wis. to Ludington, Mich.
       Along the way, it leaves a souvenir in the lake: a total of 
     about 509 tons of toxic coal ash, laced with arsenic, lead 
     and mercury over a 134-day operating schedule. That's far 
     more pollution than all the other 125 freighters plying the 
     Great Lakes collectively leave in a full year, according to 
     Coast Guard records.
       In 2008, the U.S. EPA set a four-year deadline for the 
     Badger's owners to sharply limit its pollution, the Tribune's 
     Michael Hawthorne recently reported. Didn't happen. Instead, 
     the Badger now is one step away from being protected--in all 
     its polluting glory,-- as a National Historic Landmark. 
     Interior Secretary Ken Salazar must decide.
       Hmmm. Let's see here. The Badger had four years to clean 
     up. It failed to secure a $14 million federal grant to 
     convert its engines to diesel. Now it argues that those 
     engines are a ``historic propulsion system,'' so precious as 
     artifacts that they should be protected from the EPA.
       The 410-foot ferry wants to join the rarefied world of 
     protected nautical national treasures, joining The Potomac, 
     President Franklin D. Roosevelt's yacht, and the Nautilus, 
     the world's first atomic-powered submarine.
       We say, sure, drape the Badger in the cloak of treasured 
     icons--provided it becomes a museum for tourists to tromp 
     through, docked forever in a harbor.
       ``We cannot let Historic Landmark status be used to evade 
     the federal regulations we rely on to protect public health 
     and the environment,'' U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin recently wrote 
     to Salazar. ``This Great Lake cannot take any more toxic 
     dumping, no matter how historic or quaint the source may 
     be.''
       Exactly right.
       The Badger pollutes the lake every time it makes the 60-
     mile crossing. A Badger spokesman tells us the ship's owners 
     are exploring the possibility of converting its engines to 
     run on cleaner natural gas. That would be an excellent move, 
     but it is far from certain.
       Republican U.S. Reps. Bill Huizenga and Dan Benishek, of 
     Michigan, and Tom Petri, of Wisconsin, recently added an 
     amendment to the Coast Guard budget that would prevent the 
     EPA from imposing more stringent pollution limits on any ship 
     that is ``on, or nominated for inclusion on'' the list of 
     national landmarks. Guess how many ships fit that criteria? 
     Just one. This is classic special-interest legislation that 
     benefits a few at the expense of everyone else.
       The answer here can't be a shrug over polluting the lake, 
     the region's most precious natural resource. That was the way 
     of the world in the early 1950s, when the Badger first 
     started sailing Lake Michigan. That's not acceptable now.
       The Badger, as Durbin says, was ``quaint'' back then. 
     Today, it just fouls the water.

                          ____________________