Providing for Congressional Disapproval of A Rule Submitted By Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to say a few words--I know a number of my colleagues have--before I start my discussion on the very important Coast Guard bill we are debating on the floor.

America lost a wonderful example of a strong woman, Mrs. Barbara Bush, yesterday. I think the entire country and I know the whole Senate sends its prayers and condolences to the Bush family.

If you want an example of an American citizen who represents strength, dignity, and class, and who really served our Nation so well, it was Barbara Bush. The thoughts and prayers of the Senate are with the Bush family right now. Coast Guard Authorization Bill

Mr. President, as the Presiding Officer who sits on the Armed Services Committee with me knows, each year this body, the Congress-- House and Senate--passes the Defense Authorization Act or the NDAA as it is called. It is an important bill. It moves forward the policies and authorizations of spending for the men and women serving in the military. It can be contentious, but at the end of the day for over a half century we have moved that bill forward each year.

We always forget one of the branches of the U.S. military--the men and women who serve in the Coast Guard of the United States of America. We don't always move the Coast Guard Authorization Act forward. That is not because they are not as important as the other Members of the military. In some ways, it is just a twist of the organization here in Congress. The Coast Guard is under the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee not the Armed Services Committee and is under the executive branch jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security, not the Pentagon. It is still an incredibly important organization for all of us, and so today we are going to vote on the Coast Guard Authorization Act, that we should be moving every year just like we move the NDAA because the men and women who serve in the Coast Guard are some of America's finest citizens.

I see my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Wicker, joining me on the floor. We have been working on this bill, the Coast Guard Authorization Act, for about 1 year now. We faced a lot of roadblocks, and we have moved forward on a bipartisan basis to finally get this important bill to the floor.

As the chairman of the subcommittee in charge of the Coast Guard, I feel it is very important to take a minute on the Senate floor to speak about what the men and women in our Coast Guard do on a daily basis so everybody, the people watching back home and the people in my State, the great State of Alaska, know just how important the Coast Guard is and how we are focusing on them.

Many people in the country know the Coast Guard as the heroic Americans who literally come out of the sky to rescue us when we are in trouble, particularly on the high seas. I have heard them described as angels in helicopters with courage and dignity and strength. When they show up, it is certainly America witnessing its very best.

Let me give just a few examples of what the Coast Guard does on a daily basis--certainly in my State. Here are a few examples from just the past few weeks:

In Oregon, a Coast Guard aircrew rescued four commercial fishermen after their 54-foot fishing vessel capsized off the coast of Rockaway Beach.

In Kauai, HI, the Coast Guard is assisting in recovery efforts following a storm dropping more than 27 inches of rain, causing severe flooding.

On Sunday, the Coast Guard rescued four people from the water in Blackwater Sound near Key Largo, FL, and they rescued eight people aboard a disabled vessel just a few days ago near Pensacola Bay Bridge, FL.

In New York, the Coast Guard crew just medevacked a 25-year-old man from a fishing vessel.

In my great State of Alaska, the Coast Guard is vital. Alaska has more coastline than the rest of the country combined. Think about that. Just in the past few weeks, there have been numerous rescues, as there typically are in Alaska given our tough weather, including a 44-year- old man from a fishing vessel outside of Dutch Harbor, a 59-year-old man from the waters off the Aleutian chain, and another 43-year-old man who was stranded on the barrier islands--just in the last couple of weeks.

Every one of these individuals--Americans--is alive today because of the Coast Guard. They are someone's father, brother, mother, daughter. They are someone's loved ones, and the men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard had the courage to go out and rescue them.

All in all, in addition to numerous humanitarian and law enforcement operations, including drug interdictions and coming to the rescue of hundreds of migrants who were on overcrowded and unsafe vessels, the Coast Guard is working 24/7 for us, 365 days a year. Their mission also includes icebreaking, marine and environmental protection, port security, international crisis response--the response to hurricanes that so many Americans saw over the last several months--and readiness to support Department of Defense operations, as they are the fifth branch of the U.S. military. Sometimes we forget that.

So this bill that we are debating right now and that we are going to be voting on in a little bit here on the Senate floor is the bill that sets the policies, the spending authorization, and the readiness standards for the entire U.S. Coast Guard. It is enormously important, and I believe it should pass in a bipartisan way--the way it passed out of the Commerce Committee--with a strong vote from Senators, Republicans and Democrats, on both sides of the aisle.

The Coast Guard Authorization Act also contains many important items for our fishermen, fisheries, maritime industries, maritime unions, and maritime workers. Let me give some important examples.

Included in this legislation is language to permanently fix issues that have plagued our fishermen and our commercial vessel owners and operators in the maritime industry and the workers in that industry for decades. We have an opportunity here to make good policy--again, bipartisan policy--that we have been debating for years in the Congress.

Currently, our fishing fleets and vessel owners and operators are forced to comply with a patchwork of burdensome Federal and State regulations for ballast water and incidental discharges.

Let me start by talking about the incidental discharges. If you are a commercial fisherman on a vessel and you catch some fish and you want to hose off your deck because you have fish parts where you may have gutted and headed fish--let's face it, the fishing industry can be a bit messy--under current law, believe it or not, you have to get permission from the EPA to do this. You need a permit, and if you don't have one, you can face a fine. OK, think about that. You have taken a fish out of the water. You have processed it. You are hosing down your deck. It has some fish guts on it. For the fish parts to go back into the ocean, you need a permit. Yes, everybody in the country thinks this is ridiculous, and it is. It creates inefficiencies, adds business costs, inhibits economic prosperity in States like mine, certainly, and it kills jobs.

Most fishermen--most fishing vessels--are small business owners. They are the ultimate small business owners. They take risks. They work hard. They create and produce a great product, such as wild Alaska salmon. Yet we are regulating them with these kinds of inefficient regulations that nobody supports. It is just another burden that we put on the men and women who are actually trying to make a living and create economic opportunities for others. So this bill, which has strong bipartisan support, does away with that because it makes no sense.

Another provision in this bill tries to cut through a patchwork of burdensome State regulations for vessel ballast water. Currently, ballast water is regulated under both the Coast Guard and the EPA--dual regulations. That is trouble enough. They each have separate and inconsistent and sometimes directly conflicting sets of Federal requirements, and then you layer on State requirements too.

Let me give an example. You are a commercial vessel owner/operator going up the full length of the Mississippi River. Right now, not only must you comply with the inconsistent Coast Guard and EPA requirements, but you also have to comply with different and separate requirements from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas. Again, it makes no sense. There are 25 States regulating ballast water under separate, inconsistent, and often directly conflicting sets of requirements. This cripples not only the American economy but also the hard-working men and women of our country who work in the maritime industry.

By the way, it makes it more likely that invasive species--a very real and serious issue--will accidentally be introduced because there is such a conflicting patchwork of regulations. I am very aware of the invasive species issues that plague different States. There are a lot of concerns we have heard, and certainly we have addressed it in this bill--from the Great Lakes.

If the current patchwork system worked, well, I think a number of us would be supportive, but it simply doesn't work. It is not working at all, and it is only getting worse. This confusing array of requirements will only continue to grow, confusing vessel owners and operators and their workers and making it literally almost impossible to comply. The EPA says one thing, the Coast Guard says another thing, and 25 different States say 25 different other things.

One person who knows this issue very well is the current Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Zukunft. Just yesterday, he told the House Appropriations Committee that ``it makes sense to have one entity'' regulating vessels--at very high standards but one entity. ``I really put myself in the shoes of a mariner,'' he said, talking about how difficult it is with the current system. ``Competing entities doing the enforcement operations'' is not working. He said that the Coast Guard understands the issue best, understands the mariners, and also, importantly, understands the technology.

Even the EPA has said that the rules developed by the Coast Guard, which knows this issue best, will work for them because our bill requires concurrence with the EPA. Under the legislation that we are debating right now in the Senate, you cannot set a standard unless the EPA concurs, which is important. They essentially have a veto over this, but they know that the Agency that is best suited to regulate moving vessels on the water is not their Agency--the professional staff of the EPA have said that--it is the Coast Guard, which is where we put the regulatory authority in this bill.

Further, under the bill, States have the authority to enforce the Federal regulations regarding ballast water and incidental discharge. So the States still have a lot of power and authority on the enforcement side in this bill.

This confusing patchwork of regulations only diminishes the overall effectiveness of U.S. efforts to meet the high environmental standards that we all want. We need strong, uniform, national standards to keep our waters clean and to defend against invasive species, and we also need these standards so the workers and the people in this industry--a huge industry for America--can go and do their job.

The good news here is that we have been working on this issue for at least the past 3 years that I have been in the Senate, but we have really been working on it for decades. For the most part, we have had strong bipartisan support to get this bill done. Let me give some examples.

There are 23 Members from both sides of the aisle who have cosponsored these vessel incidental discharge provisions that I am talking about--23 cosponsors. Many more signed on to a letter of support for this, Democrats and Republicans.

This bill has been voted out of committee several times. It has strong bipartisan support--including when the Democrats were in control of the Senate a couple years ago. We all worked diligently to make sure we addressed all the issues and concerns raised by many Members, and we even got some longtime opponents to come over and support this bill, again through the great work of my colleague from Mississippi. Let me give another example of that.

Dear Senator: We are writing to express our strong support for Title VIII of S. 1129, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2017, the bipartisan Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (VIDA). Our organizations represent U.S. and international vessel owners and operators; fishing vessel, passenger vessel and charterboat operators; labor unions; marine terminals and port authorities national business organizations; and industries that rely on maritime shipping to transport essential cargoes in domestic and international commerce.

VIDA is the product of bipartisan leadership and negotiation to construct a framework that will protect our waterways, foster efficient and cost-effective maritime commerce, and maintain appropriate roles for the Coast Guard, EPA and states. It is imperative that this legislation be enacted without further delay. We respectfully urge you to support the motion to proceed, cloture and final passage of S.1129.

VIDA, which currently has 24 bipartisan Senate cosponsors and 37 bipartisan House cosponsors, would eliminate a regulatory burden hindering interstate and international commerce by replacing a patchwork of federal and state regulations with uniform national standards for the regulation of ballast water and other discharges incidental to normal vessel operations. The bill would also maintain protective measures jointly undertaken by industry and federal agencies to reduce the movement of invasive species on the navigable waterways.

Without VIDA, commercial vessel owners will spend millions of dollars installing onboard equipment to comply with Coast Guard and EPA requirements, but still be at risk of fines and penalties for violating state requirements that cannot be met by existing technology. This overlapping patchwork of federal and state regulations kills jobs, undermines the efficiency of maritime transportation, increases business costs, and places mariners at risk of civil and criminal prosecution. It also delays investments in treatment technology that will strengthen environmental protection.

VIDA would provide vessel owners and mariners with a predictable and transparent regulatory structure in which vessel incidental discharges are regulated and enforced by the U.S. Coast Guard, using as its baseline the ballast water discharge standard that EPA's Science Advisory Board has determined to be the most stringent currently achievable. The bill will ensure the installation of high-performing technologies on commercial vessels, and allows for improvements in the national standard as technology improves. VIDA also preserves the ability of states to enforce the federal ballast water discharge standard, petition for a higher standard, work with Coast Guard to develop best management practices, and regulate recreational vessels operating in their waters.

VIDA will also permanently exempt fishing vessels and vessels under 79 feet from EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program. These vessels have been operating under a series of temporary exemptions enacted by Congress. Permanent relief is needed for the operators of these vessels, as long-term regulatory certainty is needed for the operators of large commercial vessels.

VIDA will strengthen protections for America's waterways, provide a stable regulatory structure for interstate and international maritime commerce, and eliminate needlessly duplicative regulatory programs. Please support passage of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2017.

Respectfully,

ADM; AccuTrans, Inc.; AEP River Transportation; AK Steel; Alabama Charter Fishing Association; Albany Port District Commission; Alaska Charter Association; American Association of Port Authorities; American Commercial Barge Line LLC; American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers; American Great Lakes Ports Association; American Institute of Marine Underwriters (AIMU); American Iron and Steel Institute; American Maritime Congress; American Maritime Officers; American Maritime Officers Service; American Petroleum Institute; American Petroleum Tankers; American President Lines, LLC; American River Transportation Company.

American Roll-on Roll-off Carrier (ARC); American Steamship Company; American Tunaboat Association; Amherst Madison, Inc.; Andrie Inc.; ArcelorMittal USA; Armstrong Steamship Company; Associacao de Armadores da Marinha do Comercio; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Association; At-sea Processors Association; Avalon Freight Services; Bahamas Shipowners Association; Bay Shipbuilding Company; Baydelta Maritime; Bay-Houston Towing Company; Beach Haven Charter Fishing Association; Bell Steamship Company; Benchmark Marine Agency; Blessey Marine Services, Inc.; Borghese Lane LLC.

Bren Transportation Corp.; Brown Water Marine Service, Inc.; Buffalo Marine Service, Inc.; C & J Marine Services, Inc.; C&M Shipping & Trading Agency, Inc.; Callais & Sons, LLC; Calumet River Fleeting, Inc.; Campbell Transportation Company, Inc.; Canal Barge Company, Inc.; Canfornav Ltd.; Cape Cod Charter Boat Association; Carmeuse Lime and Stone; Central Boat Rentals, Inc.; Central Dock Company; Central Marine Logistics; CGBM 100, LLC; Chamber of Marine Commerce; Chamber of Shipping (Canada); Chamber of Shipping of America; Channel Design Group.

Charterboat Association of Puget Sound; Chesapeake Bay Charter Boat Association; Chicago & Western Great Lakes Port Council, MTD, AFL-CIO; Chicago Sportfishing Association; Chincoteague Island Charterboat Association; City of Superior, Wisconsin; Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority; Cliffs Natural Resources Inc.; CN, Duluth, MN; ConocoPhillips; Consumer Energy; Consumer Energy Alliance--Midwest; C-PORT, Conference of Professional Operators for Response Towing; Crounse Corporation; Crowley Maritime Corporation; Cruise Lines International Association; CSX Transportation, Toledo Docks; Cyprus Shipping Chamber; D & S Marine Service, L.L.C.; Daniels Shipping Service.

Dann Marine Towing, LC; Dann Ocean Towing, Inc.; Deale Captains Association; Deloach Marine Services; Detroit-Wayne County Port Authority; Devall Brothers Barge Line II, LLC; Devall Brothers Towing II, LLC; Devall Commercial Barge Line, LLC; Devall Diesel Services, LLC; Devall Enterprises, LLC; Devall Offshore Barge Line, LLC; Devall Offshore, LLC; Devall Resources, Inc.; Devall Third Generation Towing, LLC; Devall Towing & Boat Service of Hackberry, L.L.C.; Dock 63; Donjon Marine Co., Inc.; Donjon Shipbuilding & Repair; Dredging Contractors of America; DTE Electric Co.

Duluth Seaway Port Authority; Durocher Marine; E Squared Marine Service, LLC; E.N. Bisso & Son, Inc.; Eastern Lake Erie Charterboat Association; Edw. C. Levy Co.; Ergon Marine and Industrial Supply; Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port Authority; European Community Shipowners' Associations; Evansville Marine Service, Inc.; Faroese Merchant Shipowners Association; Faulkner, Hoffman & Phillips; Fednav Ltd.; Fishing Vessel Owner's Association; Florida Guides Association, Inc.; Foss Maritime Company; Fraser Shipyards; General Marine Services LLC; Genesee Charter Association, Inc.; Global Marine Transportation, Inc.; Golden Gate Fishermen's Association. Golding Barge Line, Inc.; Grand River Navigation Company; Great Lakes District Council-ILA, AFL-CIO; Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company, LLC; Great Lakes Fleet; Great Lakes Maritime Task Force; Greater Point Pleasant Charter Boat Association; Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association; Hackberry Land, LLC; Hallett Dock Company; Harbor Towing & Fleeting, LLC; Harley Marine Services; Hawaii Resource Group LLC; Higman Marine Services, Inc.; Homer Charter Association; Hong Kong Shipowners Association; Hughes Bros., Inc.; Huntington District Waterways Association; ILA Lake Erie Coal & Ore Dock Council; ILA Local 1317.

ILA Local 1768; Illinois Chamber of Commerce; Illinois International Port District; Illinois Marine Towing, Inc.; Ilwaco Charter Association; Indian National Shipowners' Association; Indiana's North Coast Charter Association; Ingram Barge Company; Inland Lakes Management; Inland Marine Service; Int'l Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers District Lodge 1943; Int'l Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers District Lodge 4; Int'l Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers District Lodge 60; Int'l Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers District Lodge 65; Int'l Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers District Lodge 98; Integrity--Black Lake Fleeting Services, LLC; Integrity Terminal and Marine Services, LLC; International Association of Drilling Contractors; International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers; International Brotherhood of Boilermakers.

International Chamber of Shipping; International Longshoremen's Association; International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots; International Propeller Club of the United States; International Shipmasters' Association; International Shipmasters' Association (St. Catharines ON); International Union of Operating Engineers, Locals 49, 139, 150 and 324; InterShip, Inc.; INTERTANKO; Irish Chamber of Shipping; J&J Maritime Operators, LLC; Jacksonville Marine Transportation Exchange; James Transportation, LLC; JANTRAN, Inc.; Japanese Shipowners' Association; JB Marine Service, Inc.; JEFFBOAT LLC; Juneau Charter Boat Operators Association; K&L Gates LLP; Kindra Lake Towing, LP.

Kirby Corp.; Lake Carriers' Association; Lake Erie Ship Repair & Fabrication; Lake Michigan Carferry Service; Lake Michigan Yachting Association; Lakes Pilots Association; LeBeouf Bros. Towing, LLC; Liberian Shipowners' Council Ltd; Liberty Maritime Corporation; Lorain Port Authority; Louisiana Association of Waterways Operators and Shipyards; Luedtke Engineering Company; M&P Barge Company, Inc.; Maersk, Inc.; Magnolia Marine Transport Co.; Maine Association of Charter Captains; Manatee County Port Authority; Marco Island Charter Captains Association; Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association; Marine Tech.

Maritime Association of the Port of New York-New Jersey; Maritime Institute for Research and Industrial Development; Maritime Port Council of Greater NY/NJ & Vicinity; Maritime Trades Department, AFL-CIO; Marquette Transportation Company, Inc.; Maryland Charterboat Association; Maryland Port Administration; McAllister Towing; MCM Marine; Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO; Michigan City Charterboat Association; Michigan Maritime Trades Port Council, MTD, AFL-CIO; Midwater Trawlers Cooperative; Midwest Energy Resources Company; Mississippi Charter Boat Captains Association; Montana Coal Council; Moran Iron Works; Moran Towing Corporation; Muskegon Port Advisory Committee; National Association of Charterboat Operators.

National Association of Manufacturers; National Association of Maritime Organizations; National Association of Waterfront Employers; National Grain and Feed Association; National Mining Association; Navy League of the United States; New York Shipping Association; Norfolk Southern Corporation; Norfolk Tug Company; North Pacific Fishing Vessel Owners Association; Northeast Charterboat Captains Association; Northern Neck Charter Captains; Northwest Marine Trades Association; Octopus Towing LLC; Ogdensburg Bridge and Port Authority; Osborne Concrete & Stone Co.; Overseas Shipholding Group (OSG); P&M Marine Services LLC; P&R Water Taxi LLC; Panama City Boatmen Association.

Parker Towing Company, Inc.; Passenger Vessel Association; Pere Marquette Shipping Company; Petersburg Charterboat Association; Philadelphia Regional Port Authority; Polsteam USA Inc.; Port City Marine Services, Inc.; Port City Steamship Holding Company, Inc.; Port of Green Bay; Port of Milwaukee; Port of Monroe, Michigan; Port of Oswego Authority; Ports of Indiana; Prince William Sound Charter Boat Association; Progressive Barge Line, Inc.; Rod `N' Reel Captains Assoc. Inc.; Ryba Marine Construction Company; Saltchuk; Sause Bros.; SCF Marine Inc.

Seabulk Towing; Seafarers International Union; Shipping Federation of Canada; Singapore Shipping Association; Solomon's Charter Captains Association; Soo Marine Supply, Inc.; Southeast Alaska Guides Organization; Southern Offshore Fishing Association; Southern Towing Company; Spanish Shipowners' Association; Spliethoff; St. Lawrence Seaway Pilots Association; Steel Manufacturers Association; Tata Steel; Ten Mile Exchange LLC; Terral River Service, Inc.; Texas Waterways Operators Association; The American Waterways Operators; The CSL Group Inc.; The Interlake Steamship Company.

The King Co.; The Port of New Orleans; The Royal Association of Netherlands Shipowners; The Upper Bay Charter Captains Association; The Vane Brothers Company; Tidewater Barge Lines, Inc.; Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority; Toledo Port Council, MTD, AFL-CIO; TPG Chicago Dry Dock; TradeWinds Towing LLC; Transportation Institute; Trojan Technologies Inc.; Turn Services, LLC; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; U.S. Steel Corporation; UK Chamber of Shipping; Union of Greek Shipowners; United Boatmen of New Jersey; United States Great Lakes Shipping Association; United Steelworkers, District 1, AFL-CIO-CLC.

United Steelworkers, Local 5000; Upper Mississippi Waterway Association; Upper River Services, LLC; VanEnkevort Tug & Barge Inc.; Verplank Dock Co.; Victoria Fleet, LLC; Virginia Charter Boat Association; Virginia Maritime Association; Wagenborg Shipping North America; Water Quality Insurance Syndicate; Waukegan Charter Boat Association; Wepfer Marine Inc; West Dock and Market--Port of Muskegon; WESTAR Marine Services; Western Great Lakes Pilots Association, LLP; Western States Petroleum Association; Westport Charter Boat Association; Wilmington Tug, Inc.; Wood Towing, LLC; World Shipping Council; and World Shipping Inc.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I won't go into it. I have seen a lot of these kinds of letters supporting legislation, but I have rarely seen a letter that is pages and pages long--steelworkers, International Union of Operating Engineers, Juneau Charter Boat Operators Association, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Eastern Lake Erie Charterboat Association. This letter supporting the Coast Guard bill has many different groups supporting it, and that is why there has been so much strong bipartisan support.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I will be glad to yield.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is correct.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is correct.

We actually made literally dozens of changes over the last several months to accommodate almost every single Senator that had requested a change to address some of their issues. We have made numerous changes to this bill, for Republicans and Democrats, to make sure we have strong bipartisan support, and we are certainly hoping that the changes we made for so many Senators who have been supportive of the bill will now lead a strong bipartisan vote here in a little bit.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SULLIVAN. They have not only expressed strong support but have cosponsored this legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SULLIVAN. I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his very kind words. This has been a team effort. We have been working together. Democrats have been working with us. My colleagues from Florida, from Pennsylvania--we have all been down here talking about this. I know there are going to be strong votes in favor.

I do want to mention that the minority leader was just on the floor, and he ended his remarks that he just made a couple of minutes ago about how it is really important for the Senate to get back to bipartisan accomplishments that help the American worker. He just said that. Well, my colleague from New York, I couldn't agree more. That is what this bill is.

I am going to mention one other thing before I actually do my presiding time. I appreciate the Presiding Officer giving me a few additional minutes before I get in the Chair.

We have been dealing with this issue. Some have raised the issue that they are concerned about what the vessel incidental discharge provisions in this bill that I just talked about could do to the environment. I am from the great State of Alaska. We have the most pristine, beautiful environment in the world, and the cleanest water in the world. We want to keep it that way. I am all about that.

Treatment of ballast water is an important safeguard against the introduction of aquatic invasive species. The bill would establish an initial ballast water treatment standard equivalent to the Coast Guard and EPA's current standards--the most stringent standard current technology can achieve. For incidental discharges other than ballast water (such as deck runoff, anchor effluent, etc), the bill would require the establishment of best management practices within two years of the date of enactment of the Act. MYTHS VERSUS FACTS

Myth #1: The bill lowers the environmental standards for ballast water.

FACT: The new standards and requirements would be required to be based upon the best available technology economically achievable (BATEA), and would ramp up over time as new, more advanced technology becomes available. Specifically, the bill incorporates the Clean Water Act's BATEA regulatory regime to establish its uniform standards and revise them to be more stringent over time.

Myth #2: The current regulatory regime works.

FACT: Today, the Coast Guard, EPA, and 25 states are regulating ballast water under separate, inconsistent, and sometimes directly conflicting sets of requirements. This not only cripples the American economy, but also makes it more likely that invasive species will accidentally be introduced.

Myth #3: The EPA has the expertise to enforce ballast water standards.

FACT: The Coast Guard is the United States' premier maritime law enforcement service. It currently enforces ballast water standards through vessel inspections, not the EPA. However, the service cannot do a thorough and robust job because of the current patchwork and contradictory regulatory regime. This bill gives the Coast Guard the clarity and authority it needs to do a good job.

Myth #4: There is no science behind the new national standards.

FACT: This bill sets a current federal ballast water discharge standard, which the EPA's Science Advisory Board deemed the most stringent currently achievable. Moreover, when ramping up those standards, the Coast Guard, in consultation with the EPA, will set the new standard based on sound science and the best available technology economically achievable.

Myth #5: The bill undermines a States' ability to regulate ballast water.

FACT: The bill ensures that States will be able to enforce Federal requirements and, importantly, that States will be able to set future standards and best practices though an exhaustive petitioning process.

As an example, both the Coast Guard and EPA require a ballast water management system (BWMS) aboard a vessel covered by their regulations. On the one hand, the Coast Guard's regulations generally require that a BWMS be type- approved by the Coast Guard. In the case of a manufacturer whose BWMS has been approved by a foreign regulatory authority pursuant to Convention standards, that manufacturer may request a Coast Guard determination that its BWMS qualifies as an Alternate Management System (AMS). On the other hand, the EPA's Vessel General Permit (VGP) requires only that a BWMS ``has been shown to be effective by testing conducted by an independent third party laboratory, test facility or test organization.'' Although a BWMS approved by the Coast Guard is deemed by the VGP to comply with its effectiveness requirement, a BWMS may also be tested and found effective under the VGP by another ``laboratory, test facility, or test organization,'' even though it has not been approved by the Coast Guard. Thus a BWMS could end up being installed on a vessel in compliance with the VGP, yet not comply with Coast Guard regulations.

On top of this duplicative, inconsistent, and confusing Federal regime, subjecting vessels to NPDES has opened the door for States to establish their own varying standards and requirements for vessel discharges. California, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Oregon, and Washington are among those that already have promulgated their own ballast water management requirements that also apply to commercial vessels navigating in State waters. In 2006, the State of California enacted a ballast water treatment standard at the recommendation of the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) that requires less than 0.01 living organisms measuring between 10 and 50 micrometers per milliliter of ballast water discharged (1000 times the IMO D-2 standard) and requires zero detectable living organisms greater than 50 micrometers per milliliter of ballast water discharged. However, the State has continued to delay implementation of its requirement that vessel owner/ operators install BWMS that meet these standards because no BWMS are available that meet California's treatment standards. In the CSLC staff's words: More specifically, shipboard ballast water treatment systems cannot be considered available to meet the California performance standards because: 1) no ballast water treatment system has demonstrated efficacy for all of the California performance standards based on the best available data, 2) there are no suitable methods/technology to analyze ballast water samples to determine treatment system efficacy for some of the California performance standards, and 3) a lack of sampling/ compliance protocols precludes the ability of the Commission to make a conclusive determination about the availability of shipboard ballast water treatment systems to meet the California performance standards.

In all, 25 States have certified the VGP subject to additional requirements The compliance challenges posed by this situation are staggering. As an example, a commercial vessel owner/operator transiting the full length of the Mississippi River is required to comply not only with applicable Coast Guard requirements under NANPCA/NISA and the EPA's VGP requirements, but also with varying additional VGP permit requirements imposed by the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, and Arkansas. This confusing array of requirements will only continue to grow, confusing vessel owner/operators seeking in good faith to comply, confounding law enforcement authorities, unnecessarily impeding maritime commerce, and, most importantly, diminishing the overall effectiveness of U.S. efforts to combat aquatic invasive species. Strong, uniform national standards are necessary to effectively defend against invasive species brought to the United States in ballast water. The Vessel Incidental Discharge Act would require the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating (Secretary), in consultation with the Administrator of the EPA (Administrator), to establish and implement enforceable, uniform, national standards and requirements for the regulation of ballast water discharges and other discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels. The new standards and requirements would be required to be based upon the best available technology economically achievable, and would generally supersede the current jumble of Federal and State incidental discharge requirements. However, States would retain authority to enforce the new requirements in their waters.--Minority Staff, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SULLIVAN. This document has myths versus facts on what people are saying that this bill could do, and then it gives you the facts. I am not going to read each one, but if we have to have a debate on it, I certainly will read each one. It is really important to see this wasn't created by Senator Wicker or me. If you look at the author of this, it was the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation--our committee--written by the minority staff. What does that mean?

This is a Democratic staff under the minority and the Ranking Member on the committee saying that all the things you are hearing about how this is going to be bad are not true. Those are myths. These are the facts. These are our Democratic colleagues rebutting some of the people now looking to maybe not vote for this.

I ask all of my colleagues who are on the fence to take a look at this really well-produced myths-versus-facts sheet that was produced by our Democratic colleagues on the Commerce Committee because, again, it goes to what Senator Wicker was talking about--that this is a very strong bipartisan bill that we have been working on for months or really years. This has passed out of committee, I think, six different times with strong bipartisan support, including when the Democrats were chairing the committee.

I want to say to all of my colleagues that it is not just what is in this bill on the VIDA provision, or the discharge provision.

The bill is about the Coast Guard, the men and women serving in the Coast Guard. Every year, as I mentioned, we pass the NDAA, which is great--Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines--but we always forget about the Coast Guard, and we shouldn't be doing that. They are heroic young men and women. We can send a bipartisan signal today that we care about them. We are recognizing the heroic work you do for this country and the lives you save every day. We have your back.

I urge all of my colleagues, particularly my colleagues who know this issue, who have voted for this bill to come out of committee many times--there are well over 60 of us--to vote yes on this important bill when it comes to the floor in a few minutes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source