write_parts.c-54 : failed to open = [/local/etc/httpd/cgi-lis/txt_templates/compr_reg_crumb.txt]

Committee Reports

104th Congress (1995-1996)

House Report 104-815 - Part 1

Committee Reports for the 104th Congress
House Report 104-815 - Part 1 1 of 1
Search Results  > House Report 104-815 - Part 1
New Search Help  |  Contact Us
This Report: To Accompany H.R.3217     Printer Friendly: HTML  |  PDF


{link: 'http://www.congress.gov:80/cgi-bin/cpquery?',title: 'THOMAS - Committee Report - House Report 104-815 - Part 1' }

NATIONAL INVASIVE SPECIES ACT OF 1996

29-006

104TH CONGRESS

REPT. 104-815

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

2d Session

Part 1
NATIONAL INVASIVE SPECIES ACT OF 1996

SEPTEMBER 20, 1996- Ordered to be printed
Mr. SHUSTER, from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 3217]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE NONINDIGENOUS AQUATIC NUISANCE PREVENTION AND CONTROL ACT OF 1990.

`Subtitle B--Prevention of Unintentional Introductions of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species'.

`SEC. 1101. AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES.

`SEC. 1102. NATIONAL BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT INFORMATION.';

`SEC. 1103. ARMED SERVICES BALLAST WATER PROGRAMS.

`SEC. 1104. BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

`Subtitle C--Prevention and Control of Aquatic Nuisance Species Dispersal'.

`SEC. 1203. REGIONAL COORDINATION.';

(aa) by inserting `or interstate organization' after `the State'; and

(bb) by inserting `Indian tribes,' after `local governments and regional entities,'; and

SEC. 3. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of H.R. 3217, the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA), is to reauthorize and amend the Nonaquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA) to strengthen and improve the nation's response to threats posed by aquatic nuisance species. The legislation provides for, among other things, ballast water management and other measures to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species into waters of the United States.

NEED FOR LEGISLATION

In the 1980's, there was growing concern about nonindigenous species (particularly zebra mussels and the Eurasian ruffe) in the Great Lakes and other water bodies. Nonindigenous nuisance species, also referred to as invasive or exotic species, are those plants, fish, animals, and associated invertebrates that have moved, either intentionally or unintentionally, beyond their native ranges, usually with humans as the primary agents of dispersal. Introduced by ballast water or other means, these nonnative species can adversely affect, among other things, valuable fisheries, water infrastructure and related facilities and the overall ecological balance in affected areas.

In response to these concerns, Congress enacted NANPCA to establish a program for preventing, researching, monitoring and controlling infestations of nonindigenous aquatic species in the Great Lakes. NANPCA set up a multi-agency task force (the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force) to develop and oversee the program. NANPCA also initiated a policy review of the effects of intentional introductions of nonindigenous species (such as for sport fishing or biological pest control), a zebra mussel demonstration project, and state aquatic nuisance management planning. It created the Great Lakes Aquatic Nuisance Species Panel to help coordinate federal, state, local and private efforts concerning nonindigenous species within the Great Lakes basin.

Perhaps most importantly, NANPCA directed the Coast Guard to issue voluntary guidelines for the Great Lakes and, after two years, promulgate regulations (applicable to the Great Lakes) to help reduce the probability of new introductions of nonindigenous species by commercial vessels, whose ballast water is a leading pathway for nonindigenous aquatic species into U.S. waters. The zebra mussel and the ruffe, along with the spiny water flea and many of the other nonindigenous organisms that have been introduced into the Great Lakes ecosystem, were transported to the Great Lakes in the ballast tanks of transoceanic vessels. Red tide and the edible brown mussel (Perna perna) are examples of ballast stowaways that have been discharged into U.S. marine coastal environments.

Six years after its passage, there is need to reauthorize and reform NANPCA to address waters beyond the Great Lakes and threats of additional exotic species through nationwide preventive management measures. The zebra mussel alone has been estimated to cost several billion dollars in repairs and removals related to the clogging of water supply intakes. The zebra mussel has also established itself in many of the freshwater systems of the eastern United States, including the upper Mississippi River, where it has degraded an economically valuable commercial mollusk fishery. Similarly, there is growing awareness of the threat of nonindigenous species to marine coastal areas, including estuaries such as the Chesapeake Bay, the San Francisco Bay and Delta, and the Gulf of Mexico. For example, Perna perna (a type of mussel) invaded South America via ballast discharge years ago and was recently transported to the Gulf of Mexico near Galveston, Texas.

Compliance by the Great Lakes shipping industry with NANPCA has been high. At the March 22, 1996, National Forum on Nonindigenous Species Invasions in U.S. and Marine Fresh Waters sponsored by the Northeast-Midwest Institute, the United States Coast Guard reported that there were only 4 known cases of noncompliance in 1995, all due to a misunderstanding of the regulations. Based on this positive record of compliance, NISA takes the approach of first relying on a voluntary program of ballast water exchange and management practices to reduce the probability of the introduction of nonindigenous species from ships operating in waters of the United States. Under NISA, the voluntary program does not become mandatory unless the Secretary of Transportation determines that the rate of voluntary compliance with the guidelines is not adequate or if the Secretary is unable to adequately assess compliance due to inadequacies in voluntary reporting.

As with NANPCA, the primary focus of NISA is on ballast water exchange as a means of control of the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species, primarily due to the lack of other proven prevention and control methods. To address other vectors for introduction and spread, the bill authorizes funding for research and demonstration projects in these areas.

DISCUSSION OF COMMITTEE BILL (H.R. 3217) AND SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES.

Section 1 of the bill provides that the Act may be cited as the `National Invasive Species Act of 1996' and notes that references to section numbers therein are to the `Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990.'

SECTION 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE NONINDIGENOUS AQUATIC NUISANCE PREVENTION AND CONTROL ACT OF 1990.

(a) FINDINGS; DEFINITIONS- Subsection (a) adds additional findings to section 1002(a) of NANPCA to reflect the fact that NISA broadens the scope of current law and applies to all the waters of the United States, not just the Great Lakes, and to reflect that NISA, like NANPCA, is intended to address many invasive species, including both aquatic nuisance plants and a range of animals in addition to the zebra mussel.

Subsection (a) also amends the definitions in section 1003 of NANPCA to correct certain references and add definitions for `Great Lakes region,' `Indian tribe,' and `interstate organization.'

(b) AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES CONTROL PROGRAM- Subsection (b) restates and amends section 1101 of NANPCA. Under current law, section 1101 sets up the program for ballast water exchange by vessels that enter a United States port on the Great Lakes after operating beyond the exclusive economic zone. This program began with voluntary guidelines in 1991 and automatically became mandatory regulations in November 1992.

NISA amends section 1101(b)(2) of NANPCA to remove any uncertainty regarding the applicability of the current Great Lakes regulations to all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks, regardless of whether they are currently carrying ballast or the amount of ballast in their tanks. NISA also authorizes the Secretary of Transportation (`Secretary') to carry out further educational and technical assistance programs to further continued compliance with the Great Lakes program for ballast water exchange.

To address the introduction and spread of nonindigenous species to waters of the United States beyond the Great Lakes, NISA adds new subsections (c), (d), and (e) to section 1101 of NANPCA.

New section 1101(c) requires the Secretary to issue voluntary national guidelines to prevent the introduction and spread of nonindigenous species in waters of the United States by ballast water operations and other operations of vessels equipped with ballast water tanks. The Committee expects the Secretary to consult with the Task Force and regional panels under this Act in developing these guidelines. These guidelines must direct vessels carrying ballast water after operating beyond the exclusive economic zone to carry out ballast water exchange or another ballast water management method that is environmentally sound and determined by the Secretary to be at least as effective as ballast water exchange in preventing and controlling infestations of aquatic nuisance species. The Committee notes that passenger vessel ship design and stability considerations make it unsafe for these vessels to exchange ballast water at sea. The water treatment systems employed by certain passenger vessels use sodium hyprochlorate solutions or metal electrolytic cathodes to kill both adult and larva stages of undesirable organisms. This treatment process prevents the growth of organisms in the internal water distribution system of the vessel, and prevents the growth or organisms that may otherwise be discharged with ballast water into U.S. waters. The Committee expects the Secretary will determine that such ballast water treatment systems in passenger cruise ships are environmentally sound and as effective as ballast water exchange.

The guidelines also must include management practices to reduce the probability of unintentional introductions from ship operations other than ballast discharge and must provide for record keeping and sampling procedures to allow the Secretary to determine compliance with the guidelines. These guidelines also must, among other things, protect the safety of each vessel and the crew and passengers of each vessel--as determined by the master of the vessel--and must take into account geographic and ecological variations and different operating conditions. The Committee intends that the guidelines clearly except a vessel from the requirement to exchange ballast water at sea when the master of a vessel believes it is unsafe to do so. Under existing ballast water exchange regulations for the Great Lakes, the master of any vessel subject to the ballast water exchange requirement is not required to exchange ballast water before entering the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, if it would be unsafe due to weather, equipment failure, ship architecture, or other extraordinary conditions. The Committee intends that the voluntary national guidelines include these exceptions for ballast water exchange. The guidelines may not supersede or affect any Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) requirements. The Secretary is also directed to carry out education and technical assistance programs to encourage compliance with the voluntary guidelines.

New sections 1101 (d) and (e) set up a procedure for the periodic review and revision of both the voluntary national guidelines and any regulations issued under the Act.

With respect to the new voluntary national guidelines, this section requires the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force to develop criteria for determining the adequacy and effectiveness of the voluntary guidelines and submit them to the Secretary within 18 months of enactment. These criteria will be applied by the Secretary in assessing compliance with and effectiveness of the guidelines. The Secretary must, not later than three years after enactment of NISA, and at least every three years thereafter, assess the rate of compliance with and the effectiveness of the voluntary national guidelines in reducing the introduction and spread of invasive species by vessels. In addition, under this section the Task Force is authorized to request the Secretary to conduct a special review and revision for specified waterways.

If, based on a review, the Secretary determines that the voluntary national guidelines are not sufficiently effective and revision is necessary, the Secretary must revise the guidelines, after providing notice and an opportunity for comment. If, based on a review, the Secretary determines that the rate of compliance by vessels with the voluntary national guidelines is not adequate, or if the Secretary must, in accordance with new section 1101(e), promptly issue the guidelines as enforceable regulations.

If the Secretary determines that the guidelines or a portion thereof are ineffective and that there is an inadequate rate of compliance with the ineffective guidelines, the Secretary should correct the problem with the voluntary guidelines and provide vessels with an opportunity to comply with effective guidelines, before turning the revised guidelines into enforceable regulations.

The Committee understands that the Coast Guard is currently developing strategies for assessing and ensuring compliance with guidelines and regulations issued under this Act, including any new regulations that may be issued under new section 1101(e). The Committee expects the Coast Guard to timely develop a system for measuring compliance to ensure that necessary information is available for the reviews under subsection (d). The Committee recognizes that monitoring and ensuring compliance with a national program requires advance planning and may raise resource and implementation issues, and encourages the Coast Guard to continue this effort and consult with the Task Force and other interested parties. In prioritizing its efforts, the Coast Guard should consider developing a compliance monitoring strategy for the San Francisco Bay area which addresses saltwater to saltwater voyages.

The periodic and special review procedures of new section 1101(d) also apply to the existing regulations for the Great Lakes issued under section 1101(b). These regulations are already enforceable, but may be revised if necessary based on the Secretary's review of their effectiveness. These periodic and special review procedures also apply to any regulations that may be issued under subsection 1101(e).

New section 1101(f) restates the sanctions of civil penalties, criminal penalties, and revocation of clearance that are currently applicable to violations of the Great Lakes regulations and expands the scope of these sanctions to include the new national regulations that may be issued under section 1101(e). Also, these sanctions are consolidated in new section 1101(f) and therefore sections 1101(b)(2)(F), (c) and (d) of current law are deleted.

New sections 1101(g), (h) and (i) require coordination with other federal agencies, encourage consultation with foreign governments, and encourage international cooperation respectively. Any coordination with other Federal agencies that would require use of another agency's personnel or resources must, of course, be on a consensual basis. For example, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture must consent to the use of its personnel, facilities and other resources in coordinating with other agencies to help implement this Act.

(c) NATIONAL BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT INFORMATION- Subsection (c) amends section 1102(b) of NANPCA to require the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and the Secretary of Transportation to conduct surveys of both the ecology of and the ballast discharge rates and practices in certain estuaries of national significance and other waters the Task Force determines to be susceptible to invasion by aquatic nuisance species. The term `estuaries of national significance' refers to estuaries included in the National Estuary Program under section 320 of the Clean Water Act.

One purpose of these surveys is to assist the Secretary in making its determination of the effectiveness of and compliance with the voluntary national guidelines, as required by section 1101(d). The Committee expects the Task Force and the Secretary to complete these surveys in a time frame that will allow the Secretary to consider the results as it conducts its periodic reviews.

Subsection (c) also adds new section 1102(e) to authorize the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to award grants for research on aquatic nuisance species prevention and control. This authorization totals $2.25 million a year for six years. During the July 17, 1996, hearing on the bill, the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee and the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee heard testimony and statements for Members regarding the risk invasive species pose to, among others, the Chesapeake Bay, the San Francisco Bay, the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, and the Gulf of Mexico. As introduced, NISA authorized up to $750,000 annually in research grants for aquatic nuisance species prevention and control research in the Chesapeake Bay, to be administrated by the Chesapeake Research Consortium. The Committee amended the introduced bill to respond to the concerns of other regions in addition to the Chesapeake Bay. As reported, NISA also authorizes $500,000 annually for research in the Gulf of Mexico, to be administered by the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, $500,000 annually for research on the Pacific Coast, and $500,000 annually for research on the Atlantic Coast (other than the Chesapeake Bay).

Finally, subsection (c) adds new section 1102(f)(1) to the Act to require the Secretary of Transportation to develop and maintain a National Ballast Information Clearinghouse. To implement the existing doctrine of port state control, that helps ensure the safety of our harbors, waterways, and communities, the Coast Guard maintains a database of all vessels that enter and clear the United States. This system is called the Vessel Identification System (VID). The Committee believes that it will be a simple process to include in the VID system the ballast water exchange information required by the Act and will not require the investment of new resources in a ballast water exchange tracking system. Using this system, the Coast Guard will be able to review a vessel's ballast water exchange history before the vessel arrives in the United States to help them decide whether to board the vessel to test the water in its ballast tanks. The Committee intends the Secretary to consult closely with the Task Force and SERC and make use of the Task Force's expertise in ecological issues and SERC's experience with monitoring ballast water exchange in the Chesapeake Bay.

New section 1102(f)(2) requires the Secretary, working closely with the Task Force and the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, to submit to Congress a report that synthesizes and analyzes the data collected by the Coast Guard under paragraph (1). The Committee intends for the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) to conduct the data synthesis and analysis required for this report. SERC is home to perhaps the largest ballast water research and invasion programs in the country and is uniquely qualified to provide expertise on ecological issues arising from biological invasions. The Committee intends SERC to play a key role in meeting a critical need for organization, analysis, interpretation, and distribution of the data maintained by the Coast Guard.

(d) ARMED SERVICES BALLAST WATER PROGRAM; BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM- Subsection (d) adds two new sections to Subtitle B of NANCPA. New section 1103 requires the Secretary of Defense and, for Coast Guard vessels, the Secretary of Transportation, to implement a ballast water management program for seagoing vessels to minimize the risk of introduction of nonindigenous species from releases of ballast water. The Committee is aware that, due to operational conditions of these vessels, it may be impossible to reduce the risk to zero. Thus, the requirement is to minimize the risk, subject to operational conditions of the vessels. The Committee is aware that the Department of Defense and EPA, in consultation with the Coast Guard, the Department of Commerce, and interested States, also are currently developing a program to control discharges incidental to the normal operation of Armed Forces vessels under section 312(n) of the Clean Water Act.

New section 1104 requires the Secretary of Interior, with the concurrence of and in cooperation with the Secretary of Transportation, to conduct a ballast water management demonstration program to demonstrate technologies and practices to prevent aquatic nuisance species from being introduced into and spread through the Great Lakes and other waters of the U.S. through ballast water. Development of technologies and practices other than ballast water exchange is essential, particularly to prevent further spread of invasive species that already have been introduced into the Great Lakes or other waters of the U.S. The Committee intends this demonstration program to be a cooperative effort. The Committee expects the Secretary of Transportation, acting through the Coast Guard, to bring its expertise in vessel operations to this demonstration program. The Committee expects the Secretary of Interior, acting through the Fish and Wildlife Service, to bring its expertise with respect to aquatic nuisance species to this demonstration program.

(e) AMENDMENTS TO SUBTITLE C- Subsection (e) amends section 1201(b) to add the Secretary of Agriculture to the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. This section also adds the Chesapeake Bay Program as an ex officio member of the Task Force in section 1201(c). The Committee notes that the Chesapeake Bay Program, as well as the Lake Champlain Basin Program that was added to the Task Force in Public Law 104-182, are programs within EPA to address water quality concerns in these waters pursuant to its authority under the Clean Water Act and other authorizing legislation. Under such authorizing legislation, EPA has sponsored these programs that include both governmental entities and partners from the private sector. While nongovernmental parties may and should lend their expertise to the Task Force, they should not be accorded the same status as the governmental entities that serve as official and ex officio members of the Task Force.

Subsection (e) amends the existing zebra mussel demonstration program in section 1202(i)(1) to require the Army Corps of Engineers to develop a demonstration program for the control of zebra mussels around public facilities. NISA also amends section 1202(i)(1) to require the Task Force to develop voluntary guidelines for controlling the spread of zebra mussels and, if appropriate, other aquatic nuisance species, through recreational activities. In determining whether it is appropriate to address other aquatic nuisance species, the Task Force should consider whether recreational activities are a likely vector for the spread, the potential impacts of such spread should it occur, whether effective control methods exist, and the cost of compliance with the control methods. The Task Force must develop these guidelines and submit them to the Secretary within one year of enactment. Within four months after receipt of the guidelines from the Task Force, the Secretary must provide an opportunity for notice and comment on the Task Force guidelines and issue voluntary guidelines that are based on the Task Force guidelines. The Secretary has the discretion to revise the voluntary guidelines received from the Task Force before issuing them, based on the comments received during the public comment period.

Subsection (e) also adds four new paragraphs to section 1202(i). New Paragraph (2) authorizes research grants for projects that identify methods for controlling dispersal of aquatic nuisance species, to be administered by EPA, in cooperation with the National Science Foundation and the Task Force and authorizes the appropriation of $500,000 to EPA for such research grants. New paragraph (3) requires the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct and report on a study of the Chicago River Ship and Sanitary Canal to investigate methods for preventing aquatic nuisance species dispersal and authorizes the appropriation of $750,000 to the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct the study. New paragraph (4) authorizes EPA and the Army to enter into cost-sharing agreements with interested parties in carrying out the grant program or the Chicago River study. New paragraph (5) requires the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to provide technical assistance to the Lake Champlain Research Consortium to assist the research conducted by the Consortium pursuant to this subsection.

Subsection (e) amends section 1203 of the Act to authorize additional regional panels to coordinate governmental and private efforts to prevent and control aquatic nuisance species. The bill directs the Task Force to, within 30 days of enactment, request a Western Regional Panel to perform activities specified in the bill to identify and address threats and prevent the spread of invasive species throughout the West. The Committee understands that a Western Zebra Mussel Task Force already exists. The Aquatic Nuisance Task Force may direct its request to this existing organization, rather than convening a new Western Region Panel. The bill also directs the Task Force to encourage the development of other regional panels.

Subsection (e) amends section 1204 of the Act to broaden the existing authorization for the development of state aquatic nuisance species management plans to add interstate organizations (including Indian tribes) and to authorize the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to assist states or Indian tribes, at their request, in the enforcement of a state or interstate aquatic nuisance species management plan. Provisions on enforcement assistance are not to be construed as broadening existing enforcement authorities of the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- NISA authorizes the appropriation of $2 million to the Secretary of Transportation for 1997 and 1998, and $3 million for 1999 through 2002, totaling $16 million, to prevent unintentional introductions of aquatic nuisance species in waters of the United States under section 1101, including the development of the new voluntary guidelines, periodically reviewing those guidelines, providing education and technical assistance, and enforcing regulations.

NISA authorizes the appropriation of $1 million to the Fish and Wildlife Service and $1 million to the Secretary for each of fiscal years 1997 through 2002, totaling $12 million, to perform the ecological surveys required under section 1102(b)(1) and the ballast discharge surveys required under section 1102(b)(2).

NISA authorizes the appropriation of $2.25 million to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institute for each of fiscal years 1997 through 2002, totaling $13.5 million, to provide regional research grants under section 1102(e).

NISA authorizes the appropriation of $500,000 for each of fiscal years 1997 through 2002, totaling $3 million, to the Secretary of Transportation to develop and maintain the National Ballast Information Clearinghouse required under section 1102(f).

NISA authorizes the appropriation of $6 million for each of fiscal years 1997 through 2002, totaling $36 million, to the Department of the Interior to be used by the Fish and Wildlife Service to carry out its responsibilities in implementing the aquatic nuisance species program in section 1202 and the Brown Tree Snake Control Program in section 1209.

NISA authorizes the appropriation of $1 million for each of fiscal years 1997 through 2002, totaling $6 million, to the Department of Commerce to be used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out its responsibilities in implementing the aquatic nuisance species program in section 1202.

NISA authorizes the appropriation of $1.625 million for each of fiscal years 1997 through 2002, totaling $9.75 million, to fund aquatic nuisance species control research under section 1202(i). $500,000 of this annual authorization is to go the Lake Champlain Research Consortium and the remainder is to go to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory.

NISA authorizes the appropriation of $5 million for each of fiscal years 1997 through 2002, totaling $30 million, for grants for research on aquatic nuisance species under section 1202(f)(3). $4 million of this annual authorization is for grants administered through the National Sea Grant College Program and for grants to land grant colleges. $1 million of this annual authorization is for grants administered through the Cooperative Fisheries and Wildlife Research Unit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

NISA authorizes the appropriation of $3 million for each of fiscal years 1997 through 2002, totaling $18 million, to the Army Corps of Engineers for research on and development and demonstration of environmentally sound methods of control of zebra mussels in and around public facilities under section 1202(i)(1)(B).

NISA authorizes the appropriation of $300,000 for each of fiscal years 1997 through 2002, totaling $1.8 million, to fund regional panels under section 1203, of which $100,000 annually is to be to the Great Lakes Commission.

NISA authorizes the appropriation of $4 million for each of fiscal years 1997 through 2002, totaling $24 million, to the Department of the Interior for the Fish and Wildlife Service to make grants with approved aquatic nuisance species management plans under section 1204, of which $1.5 million annually shall be used for grants to states with approved aquatic nuisance species management plans for management of aquatic nuisance vegetable species.

NISA authorizes the appropriation of $2.5 million to the Department of the Interior to conduct the ballast water management demonstration program required by section 1104.

(g) TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS- This section makes technical corrections to the Act to remove beginning and closing quotation marks that were inadvertently codified in Public Law 101-646.

SECTION 3. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

Section 3 clarifies the Committee's intent that NISA not affect the authorities and responsibilities of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.

HEARINGS AND PREVIOUS LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY

H.R. 3217, the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, was introduced by Congressman Steven LaTourette alone with eighteen cosponsors on March 29, 1996. The bill was referred primarily to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition, to the Committee on Resources.

On July 17, 1996, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment and the Subcommittee on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation held a hearing on H.R. 3217. The Subcommittees heard testimony from eleven witnesses including representatives of the United States Coast Guard, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, state and local agencies, and the maritime industry. All of the witnesses supported the intent, objectives, and basic provisions of the bill.

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI requires each committee report to include the total number of votes cast for and against on each rollcall vote on a motion to report and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter, and the names of those members voting for and against. The Committee considered the bill and an amendment in the nature of a substitute and favorably reported it, as amended, by a voice vote.

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI requires each committee report to contain oversight findings and recommendations required pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X. The Committee has no specific oversight findings.

OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

Clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI requires each committee report to contain a summary of the oversight findings and recommendations made by the Government Reform and Oversight Committee pursuant to clause 4(c)(2) of rule X, whenever such findings have been timely submitted. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has received no findings and recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI requires each committee report that accompanies a measure providing new budget authority, new spending authority, or new credit authority or changing revenues or tax expenditures to contain a cost estimate, as required by section 308(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and, when practicable with respect to estimates of new budget authority, a comparison of the total estimated funding levels for the relevant program (or programs) to the appropriate levels under current law.

Clause 7(a) of rule XIII requires committees to include their own cost estimates in certain committee reports, which include, where practicable, a comparison of the total estimated funding level for the relevant program (or programs) with the appropriate levels under current law.

The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, pursuant to section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1994.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATES

Clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI requires each committee report to include a cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, pursuant to section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, if the cost estimate is timely submitted. The following is the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate:

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, September 19, 1996.

Hon. BUD SHUSTER,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3217, the National Invasive Species Act of 1996.

Enacting H.R. 3217 could affect direct spending and receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to the bill.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them.

Sincerely,

JUNE E. O'NEILL, DIRECTOR.

Enclosure.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

1. Bill number: H.R. 3217.

2. Bill title: National Invasive Species Act of 1996.

3. Bill Status: As ordered reported by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on September 12, 1996.

4. Bill purpose: H.R. 3217 would amend the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, which addresses environmental problems caused by the introduction and spread of certain aquatic species such as the zebra mussel into the Great Lakes and other U.S. waters. The bill would: (1) reauthorize ongoing regulatory and research activities carried out by the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Departments of Transportation, Commerce, and the Interior, (2) expand federal regulatory activities to encompass all U.S. waters, and (3) establish new programs, including:

Finally, the bill would authorize the appropriation of funds for both existing programs and new programs through fiscal year 2002.

5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: H.R. 3217 would authorize appropriations totaling nearly $174 million over the 1997-2002 period, including between $18 million and $19 million annually for regulatory and research activities already carried out (on a more limited basis) under the 1990 act. The bill would authorize funds totaling $64 million over the 1997-2002 period for new programs that would be established by H.R. 3217.

In addition to providing authorizations of appropriations, the bill could also affect federal revenues and direct spending by establishing civil and criminal fines that may be imposed by the U.S. Coast Guard in the future. CBO estimates that revenues and direct spending would not be affected until 1999, however, and that any such changes would likely be less than $500,000 a year. The estimated budgetary effects of H.R. 3217 are summarized in the following table. 



[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          1996 1997 1998  1999  2000  2001  2002 


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS ACTION                                        


Spending under current law:                                                      


Budget authority 1                           9                                   


Estimated outlays                            9    2                              


Proposed changes:                                                                


Authorization level                              31   28    29    29    29    29 


Estimated outlays                                19   26    30    29    29    29 


Spending under H.R. 3217:                                                        


Authorization level 1                        9   31   28    29    29    29    29 


Estimated outlays                            9   21   26    30    29    29    29 


CHANGES IN REVENUES AND DIRECT SPENDING                                          


Revenues:                                                                        


Estimated revenues                                       ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) 


Direct spending:                                                                 


Estimated budget authority                                     ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) 


Estimated outlays                                              ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) 


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The costs of this bill fall within budget functions 300, 400, and 500.

6. Basis of estimate: For purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 3217 will be enacted within the next few weeks, and that the full amounts authorized will be appropriated for each fiscal year. The authorization levels for each fiscal year are as stated in the bill, including $3.8 million in 1997 for one-time research and demonstration projects. Outlays for all programs have been estimated on the basis of historical patterns for similar programs.

Section 2(b) of the bill would establish criminal and civil penalties for failure to comply with regulations established by the Coast Guard to prevent the introduction or spread of nonindigenous species into U.S. waters. The Coast Guard would promulgate such regulations only if the agency determines that vessel operators are not complying with voluntary guidelines or that such guidelines are ineffective. Based on the timetables established by the bill for reviewing the effect of the voluntary guildelines, CBO expects that no mandatory regulations would be imposed before fiscal year 1999. We estimate that, beginning in that year, the penalties established by section 2(b) would increase governmental receipts by less than $500,000 annually. Criminal fines would be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund and would be available for spending in the following year. Thus, direct spending from the fund would match the increase in revenues with a one-year lag.

7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts through 1998. CBO estimates that the civil and criminal penalties established by H.R. 3217 would affect spending and receipts if the Coast Guard decides to impose mandator national regulations for the discharge of ballast water. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to the bill. However, we estimate that any resulting increase in receipts from civil and criminal fines established by the bill and related spending of criminal fines from the Crime Victims Fund would not occur before fiscal year 1999. The estimated pay-as-you-go effect is summarized in the following table.





[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]


---------------------------------


                  1996 1997 1998 


---------------------------------


Change in outlays    0    0    0 


Change in outlays    0    0    0 


---------------------------------


8. Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments: The bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). It would authorize funding for states to help them prevent and control the spread of aquatic nuisance species.

The bill would authorize appropriations of $4 million for each of fiscal years 1997 through 2002 for grants to fund state efforts to control aquatic nuisance species. States would be eligible for this funding if they develop and submit plans detailing how they intend to deal with nuisance species. The bill would also change this program to allow interstate organizations to submit plans and receive funding.

The bill would also reauthorize ongoing grant programs and would establish several new grant programs to fund research on preventing and controlling aquatic nuisance species in different regions of the country. State universities would be eligible to receive this grant funding. The bill would authorize total appropriations of $44 million for these grants over fiscal years 1997 through 2002.

9. Estimated impact on the private sector: Section 2 would impose new private-sector mandates for vessels equipped with ballast water tanks that operate in waters of the United States. In particular, it would maintain regulations for ballast exchange for vessels bound for the Great Lakes and would establish new requirements for ballast exchange for vessels bound for other U.S. waters. Based on data for 1995, the new mandate for ballast exchange would affect up to 48,000 port calls. In addition, section 2 would establish new requirements for management practices for ship operations other than ballast discharge, ballasting practices of vessels that enter U.S. waters with no ballast on board, and recordkeeping.

Representatives of the private sector have offered a wide range of opinions regarding the costs for each vessel, depending on the additional distance that the vessel must travel to exchange ballast, the additional time required to make the exchange, the method of exchange, the type of vessel, and other factors. Thus, the costs of compliance could be negligible for some vessels and high for others. CBO does not yet have enough information about current or potential future practices to measure the incremental costs of the mandates. Therefore, we cannot ascertain whether those costs would exceed the $100 million threshold for private-sector mandates.

10. Previous CBO estimate. None.

11. Estimate prepared by: Federal cost estimate--Deborah Reis. Impact on state, local, and tribal governments--Pepper Santalucia. Impact on the private sector--Victoria Greenfield.

12. Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, for Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

INFLATIONARY IMPACT STATEMENT


Clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI requires each committee report on a bill or joint resolution of a public character to include an analytical statement describing what impact enactment of the measure would have on prices and costs in the operation of the national economy. The Committee has determined that H.R. 3217 has no inflationary impact on the national economy.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED




NONINDIGENOUS AQUATIC NUISANCE PREVENTION AND CONTROL ACT OF 1990


AN ACT To prevent and control infestations of the coastal inland waters of the United States by the zebra mussel and other nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species, to reauthorize the National Sea Grant College Program, and for other purposes.




 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] TITLE I--AQUATIC NUISANCE PREVENTION AND CONTROL


Subtitle A--General Provisions


 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] SECTION 1001. SHORT TITLE.




 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] SEC. 1002. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.






































































 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] SEC. 1003. DEFINITIONS.
































































 [Struck out->][ `Subtitle B--Prevention of Unintentional Introductions of Aquatic Nuisance Species ][<-Struck out]


 [Struck out->][ `SEC. 1101. AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN THE GREAT LAKES. ][<-Struck out]






















































Subtitle B--Prevention of Unintentional Introductions of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species


SEC. 1101. AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES.














































































































































































 [Struck out->][ `SEC. 1102. NATIONAL BALLAST WATER CONTROL PROGRAM. ][<-Struck out]


SEC. 1102. NATIONAL BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT INFORMATION.


















































































SEC. 1103. ARMED SERVICES BALLAST WATER PROGRAMS.






SEC. 1104. BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.










































































 [Struck out->][ `Subtitle C--Prevention and Control of Aquatic Nuisance Species ][<-Struck out]


Subtitle C--Prevention and Control of Aquatic Nuisance Species Dispersal


 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] SEC. 1201. ESTABLISHMENT OF TASK FORCE.




























 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] SEC. 1202. AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES PROGRAM.






































































































































 [Struck out->][ `SEC. 1203. GREAT LAKES REGIONAL COORDINATION. ][<-Struck out]


SEC. 1203. REGIONAL COORDINATION.




























































 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] SEC. 1204. STATE AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLANS.


















































 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] SEC. 1205. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS.




(16 U.S.C. 4725)


 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] SEC. 1206. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.






(16 U.S.C. 4726)


 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] SEC. 1207. INTENTIONAL INTRODUCTIONS POLICY REVIEW.




(16 U.S.C. 4727)


 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] SEC. 1208. INJURIOUS SPECIES.




 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] SEC. 1209. BROWN TREE SNAKE CONTROL PROGRAM.




 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] Subtitle D--Authorizations of Appropriation


 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] SEC.  1301. AUTHORIZATIONS.












































































 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] Subtitle E--Cooperative Environmental Analyses


 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] SEC. 1401. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES.




 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] TITLE II--GREAT LAKES FISH AND WILDLIFE RESTORATION


 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] SECTION 2001. SHORT TITLE.




 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] SEC. 2002. FINDINGS.


















 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] SEC. 2003. PURPOSE.










 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] SEC. 2004. DEFINITIONS.




























 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] SEC. 2005. GREAT LAKES FISHERY RESOURCES RESTORATION STUDY.














































 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] SEC. 2006. GOALS OF UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PROGRAMS RELATED TO GREAT LAKES FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES.
















 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] SEC. 2007. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICES.








 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] SEC. 2008. ANNUAL REPORTS.








 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] SEC. 2009. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.












* * * * * * *

 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] TITLE IV--GREAT LAKES OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT


 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] SEC. 4001. SHORT TITLE.




 [Struck out->][ ` ][<-Struck out] SEC. 4002. GREAT LAKES OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.








CORRESPONDENCE


House of Representatives,


Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,


Washington DC, September 17, 1996.


Hon. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN,

Chairman, Committee on International Relations, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: As you know, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee ordered reported H.R. 3217 (the `National Invasive Species Act of 1996') on September 12, 1996.

I recognize the Committee on International Relations has an interest in sections 1101(h) and 1101(i), which relate to international matters. I appreciate your decision not to seek a sequential referral of the bill and acknowledge this is not to be construed as a waiver of your Committee's jurisdiction.

Thank you for your cooperation and that of your staff.

With kind personal regards, I remain,

Sincerely,

BUD SHUSTER, CHAIRMAN.

-

House of Representatives,


Committee on International Relations,


Washington, DC, September 17, 1996.


Hon. BUD SHUSTER,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of September 17, 1996, in regard to your committee's consideration of H.R. 3217, the National Invasive Species Act.

It is my understanding that sections 1101(h) and 1101(I) of the legislation, relating to consultation with Canada, Mexico and other foreign governments in developing appropriate guidelines and regulations and other aspects of international cooperation designed to prevent the unintentional introduction and spread of nonindigenous species, affect matters within the jurisdiction of the International Relations Committee.

In light of your desire to move this legislation expeditiously, I will not seek a sequential referral of the bill as a result of including these provisions, without waiving or ceding now or in the future this committee's jurisdiction over the provisions in question. I will seek to have conferees appointed for these provisions during any House-Senate conference committee.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matters.

With best wishes,

Sincerely,

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, CHAIRMAN.


-

House of Representatives,


Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,


Washington, DC, September 19, 1996.


Hon. FLOYD SPENCE,

Chairman, Committee on National Security,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of September 19, 1996, regarding H.R. 3217, the National Invasive Species Act of 1996.

I agree the National Security Committee would be successful in obtaining a sequential referral of the proposed section 1103, Armed Services Ballast Water Programs.

As noted in your letter, your decision not to seek a sequential referral should not be construed as a waiver of the National Security Committee's jurisdiction.

I appreciate your cooperation and the cooperation of your staff.

With   kind personal regards, I remain

Sincerely,

BUD SHUSTER, CHAIRMAN.

-

House of Representatives,


Committee on National Security,


Washington, DC, September 19, 1996.


Hon. BUD SHUSTER,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR BUD: I understand the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has recently ordered reported H.R. 3217, the National Invasive Species Act of 1996. The bill includes a provision relating to naval ballast water programs that falls within the legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on National Security pursuant to House Rule X.

In recognition of your committee's desire to bring this legislation expeditiously before the House of Representatives, the Committee on National Security will forego a request for sequential referral of the bill, without waiving or diminishing this committee's jurisdiction over issues with which it is concerned. Of course, this committee will seek the appointment of conferees with respect to provisions within its legislative jurisdiction during any conference on the bill. I also request that this letter be printed in your committee's report on this legislation.

Thank you for your assistance and prompt attention to this matter, and I look forward to supporting H.R. 3217 on the House floor.

With warm personal regards, I am

Sincerely,

FLOYD D. SPENCE, CHAIRMAN.

-.AEMD11AF

House of Representatives,


Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,


Washington, DC, September 18, 1996.


Hon. PAT ROBERTS,

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of September 16, 1996 regarding H.R. 3217, the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, which the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee ordered reported on September 12, 1996.

I recognize the Committee on Agriculture has a jurisdictional interest in some provisions of the bill that relate to the programs and activities of the Department of Agriculture. I appreciate your decision not to seek a sequential referral of the bill and acknowledge this is not to be construed as a waiver of your Committee's jurisdiction.

Thank you for your cooperation and that of your staff.

With kind personal regards, I remain.

Sincerely,

BUD SHUSTER, CHAIRMAN.

-

House of Representatives,


Committee on Agriculture,


Washington, DC, September 16, 1996.


Hon. BUD SHUSTER,

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rayburn HOB, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN SHUSTER: Last Friday the Counsel for this Committee received a telephone call from a representative of your Committee informing him last week your Committee had reported H.R. 3217, the `National Invasive Species Act of 1996', as amended by an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute. A copy of the latter Amendment was provided to this Committee.

There are two principal provisions in the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute that I believe have an effect on the jurisdiction of this Committee. The first relates to the appointment of the Secretary of Agriculture as a member of the `Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force' (page 30 of the Amendment). The other provision (page 19 of the Amendment) relates to the `Coordination With Other Agencies' that would permit the Secretary of Transportation to use the facilities, personnel, etc. of agencies and organizations that have contacts with vessels, `including the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS] of the Department of Agriculture'.

With respect to the provision that applies to APHIS, it is not clear whether there would be reimbursement to APHIS for such services, etc. One reason I mention this is that a good part of the budget of APHIS is funded by user fees that are deposited in the Treasury and then an appropriation is enacted to provide operating funds for APHIS. However, in recent years the importers, who are the principal source of substantial fees (such as airlines), have complained that less funds are appropriated than are collected in fees and thus the services provided are currently strained to meet demands. If there would be reimbursement to APHIS, that would address a concern of this Committee. On the other hand, if the claim for services on APHIS caused problems with these funds that have substantial fee-based origins, there could be a future problem with `coordination' by APHIS.

Finally, addressing the addition of the Secretary of Agriculture to the Task Force I understand that there is currently an `ex officio' status for the Secretary), I would suggest that the term `appropriate Committees' be amended so that it encompassed the House Committee on Agriculture and the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Insofar as that term applied to this Committee, it probably would merely result in receiving an occasional copy of an existing report made to other committees. (See copy of a proposed amendment attached.)

Please advise me how you might propose to address these two issues.

Sincerely,

PAT ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN.







 




 
  
     

        
 
          


          


          

         

      		
    





  
     

       

          This Report: 


              Printer Friendly: 
HTML  |  PDF


       

      

    		
  

 



  

    
       

         

           
Search Results  > House Report 104-815 - Part 1 


     

    

   		
  





    
      

        

          
New Search


      
Help  |  Contact Us


      

     

   		
 



  

    1 of 1