[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 128 (Wednesday, September 23, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H8465-H8469]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GREAT LAKES FISH AND WILDLIFE RESTORATION ACT OF 1998
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 1481) to amend the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration
Act of 1990 to provide for implementation of recommendations of the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service contained in the Great Lakes
Fishery Restoration Study Report, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 1481
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Great Lakes Fish and
Wildlife Restoration Act of 1998''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration Study,
for which a report was submitted to Congress in 1995, was a
comprehensive study of the status, and the assessment,
management, and restoration needs, of the fishery resources
of the Great Lakes Basin, and was conducted through the joint
effort of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, State
fish and wildlife resource management agencies, Indian
tribes, and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission; and
(2) the study--
(A) found that, although State, Provincial, Native American
Tribal, and Federal agencies have made significant progress
toward the goal of restoring a healthy fish community to the
Great Lakes Basin, additional actions and better coordination
are needed to protect and effectively manage the fisheries
and related resources in the Great Lakes Basin; and
(B) recommended actions that are not currently funded but
are considered essential to meet goals and objectives in
managing the resources of the Great Lakes Basin.
SEC. 3. REFERENCE; REPEAL.
(a) Reference.--Each reference in this Act (other than in
subsection (b)) to the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife
Restoration Act of 1990 is a reference to the Act enacted by
title I of Public Law 101-537 (104 Stat. 2370).
(b) Repeal of Duplicative Enactment.--The Great Lakes Fish
and Wildlife Restoration Act of 1990, enacted as title II of
Public Law 101-646 (104 Stat. 4773), is repealed.
[[Page H8466]]
SEC. 4. PURPOSES.
Section 1003 of the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife
Restoration Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 941a) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``this Act'' and inserting ``this title'';
(2) by striking paragraph (1);
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(1) and (2), respectively;
(4) by striking paragraph (1) (as so redesignated) and
inserting the following:
``(1) to develop and implement proposals for the
restoration of fish and wildlife resources in the Great Lakes
Basin; and''; and
(5) in paragraph (2) (as redesignated by paragraph (3)), by
striking ``habitat of'' and inserting ``habitat in''.
SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.
Section 1004 of the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife
Restoration Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 941b) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``this Act'' and inserting ``this title'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), (6),
(7), (8), (9), and (10) as paragraphs (3), (4), (5), (6),
(7), (14), (9), (12), and (13), respectively;
(3) by moving paragraph (14) (as redesignated by paragraph
(2)) to the end of the section;
(4) in paragraph (9) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), by
striking ``plant or animal'' and inserting ``plant, animal,
or other organism'';
(5) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) the term `Committee' means the Great Lakes Fish and
Wildlife Restoration Proposal Review Committee established by
section 1005(c);'';
(6) by inserting after paragraph (7) (as redesignated by
paragraph (2)) the following:
``(8) the term `non-Federal source' includes a State
government, local government, Indian Tribe, other non-Federal
governmental entity, private entity, and individual;'';
(7) by inserting after paragraph (9) (as redesignated by
paragraph (2)) the following:
``(10) the term `Report' means the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service report entitled `Great Lakes Fishery
Resources Restoration Study', submitted to the President of
the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives on
September 13, 1995;
``(11) the term `restoration' means rehabilitation and
maintenance of the structure, function, diversity, and
dynamics of a biological system, including reestablishment of
self-sustaining populations of fish and wildlife;'';
(8) in paragraph (12) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)),
by striking ``and'' at the end; and
(9) in paragraph (13) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)),
by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; and''.
SEC. 6. IDENTIFICATION, REVIEW, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
PROPOSALS.
Section 1005 of the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife
Restoration Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 941c) is amended to read
as follows:
``SEC. 1005. IDENTIFICATION, REVIEW, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
PROPOSALS.
``(a) In General.--The Director, in consultation with the
Committee, shall encourage the development and, subject to
the availability of appropriations, the implementation of
proposals based on the results of the Report.
``(b) Identification of Proposals.--
``(1) Request by the director.--The Director shall annually
request that State Directors and Indian Tribes, in
cooperation or partnership with other interested entities and
based on the results of the Report, submit proposals for the
restoration of fish and wildlife resources.
``(2) Requirements for proposals.--A proposal under
paragraph (1) shall be submitted in the manner and form
prescribed by the Director and shall be consistent with the
goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, as revised
in 1987, the 1954 Great Lakes Fisheries Convention, the 1980
Joint Strategic Plan for the Management of Great Lakes
fishery resources, the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance
Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.),
and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and joint
ventures established under the plan.
``(3) Sea lamprey authority.--The Great Lakes Fishery
Commission shall retain authority and responsibility for
formulation and implementation of a comprehensive program for
eradicating or minimizing sea lamprey populations in the
Great Lakes Basin.
``(c) Review of Proposals.--
``(1) Establishment of committee.--There is established the
Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Proposal Review
Committee, which shall operate under the guidance of the
Council of Lake Committees of the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission.
``(2) Membership and appointment.--
``(A) In general.--The Committee shall consist of
representatives of all State Directors and Indian Tribes with
Great Lakes fish and wildlife management authority in the
Great Lakes Basin.
``(B) Appointments.--State Directors and Tribal Chairs
shall appoint their representatives, who shall serve at the
pleasure of the appointing authority.
``(C) Observer.--The Great Lakes Coordinator of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service shall participate as an
observer of the Committee.
``(D) Recusal.--A member of the Committee shall recuse
himself or herself from consideration of proposals that the
member, or the entity that the member represents, has
submitted.
``(3) Functions.--The Committee shall at least annually--
``(A) review proposals developed in accordance with
subsection (b) to assess their effectiveness and
appropriateness in fulfilling the purposes of this title; and
``(B) recommend to the Director any of those proposals that
should be funded and implemented under this section.
``(d) Implementation of Proposals.--After considering
recommendations of the Committee and the goals specified in
section 1006, the Director shall select proposals to be
implemented and, subject to the availability of
appropriations and subsection (e), fund implementation of the
proposals. In selecting and funding proposals, the Director
shall take into account the effectiveness and appropriateness
of the proposals in fulfilling the purposes of other laws
applicable to restoration of the fishery resources and
habitat of the Great Lakes Basin
``(e) Cost-Sharing.--
``(1) In general.--Not less than 25 percent of the cost of
implementing a proposal selected under subsection (d) (not
including the cost of establishing sea lamprey barriers)
shall be paid in cash or in-kind contributions by non-Federal
sources.
``(2) Exclusion of federal funds from non-federal share.--
The Director may not consider the expenditure, directly or
indirectly, of Federal funds received by a State or local
government to be a contribution by a non-Federal source for
purposes of this subsection.''.
SEC. 7. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
Section 1008 of the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife
Restoration Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 941f) is amended to read
as follows:
``SEC. 1008. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
``On December 31, 2002, the Director shall submit to the
Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a
report that describes--
``(1) actions taken to solicit and review proposals under
section 1005;
``(2) the results of proposals implemented under section
1005; and
``(3) progress toward the accomplishment of the goals
specified in section 1006.''.
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 1009 of the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife
Restoration Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 941g) is amended to read
as follows:
``SEC. 1009. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director--
``(1) for the activities of the Great Lakes Coordination
Office in East Lansing, Michigan, of the Upper Great Lakes
Fishery Resources Office, and of the Lower Great Lakes
Fishery Resources Office under section 1007, $3,500,000 for
each of fiscal years 1999 through 2004; and
``(2) for implementation of fish and wildlife restoration
proposals selected by the Director under section 1005(d),
$4,500,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2004, of
which no funds shall be available for costs incurred in
administering the proposals.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. GILCHREST asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1481,
the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act. I want to compliment
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) for his outstanding leadership
and tireless commitment to moving this legislation.
This measure arose from the need to coordinate management, protection
and restoration of fish and wildlife resources within the Great Lakes
Basin. The Great Lakes, which cover approximately 95,000 square miles
in surface area, provide unique challenges for resource managers. In
many respects, the Great Lakes are more comparable to oceans than lakes
and require ocean-type vessels to accomplish management and research
tasks.
With respect to our fishery laws, we must remember that fish do not
understand or recognize geographical boundaries. It is critical,
therefore, that regulatory schemes are developed throughout their
ranges. H.R. 1481 establishes necessary cooperative agreements between
States and Federal agencies to ensure that fish passing through
jurisdictions of many management regions get the proper attention they
need to sustain viable populations in the future.
The Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act uses cooperative
[[Page H8467]]
agreements between States, Native American tribes, and the Federal
Government to manage Great Lakes resources. The act encourages all
interested parties to participate in the implementation of
recommendations in the comprehensive study. These management and
restoration activities were deemed necessary to restore Great Lakes
fish and wildlife resources.
Finally, this bill was designed to evaluate and, where appropriate,
implement the recommendations of the Great Lakes Fishery Resources
Restoration Study. This 5-year study identified 32 recommendations
which should be undertaken to restore the fishery resources of the
Great Lakes Basin to sustainable levels.
Mr. Speaker, while I will let my Great Lakes colleagues discuss some
or all of the 32 recommendations, I will point out that one of the
suggestions was to conduct a cormorant fishery predation study. Since
this issue has been of interest to several Members of the House, I
would hope that this study would occur.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation authorizes the Department of the
Interior to spend $8 million per year to carry out fish and wildlife
restoration in the Great Lakes Basin. This is a sound investment in a
very important region of the country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 1481, and I look forward
to early positive action by the other body on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) a member of our committee.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Miller) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman
Young) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), ranking member,
for their hard work on this bill.
The Great Lakes Basin is a vibrant and diverse environment.
Ecosystems of the Great Lakes support a wide array of economic and
recreational activities. The long-term health of those ecosystems is
fundamental to ensuring the quality of life that Americans from the
Great Lakes region have come to enjoy. Protecting these precious bodies
of water is of the utmost importance, since they are the largest body
of fresh surface water in the United States.
While I am pleased that this bill is coming to the floor, I am
disappointed to see that the language to institute a new model for a
Michigan fisheries Cooperative Unit was not included.
Michigan is home to some of the finest fisheries institutions in this
country, and yet it does not have the Cooperative Unit designation
given to 37 States. Despite working for more than a decade to redress
this issue, it has repeatedly been blocked by some who see the benefits
of a Michigan fisheries designation as a threat to their own funding.
I believe the people of the United States want us to work through
these fears to ensure that their best interests are of the utmost
concern. This is not just about fairness. It is about capitalizing on
Michigan's fisheries expertise.
Michigan State University and the University of Michigan have
proposed an alternative that will cost the Federal Government next to
nothing. In return for providing staff from these universities, the
State of Michigan would finally receive this important fisheries
research designation. This is a very creative approach that I hope we
will explore in the future.
Mr. Speaker, for that purpose, I would like to engage in a colloquy
with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. Speaker, I know that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton)
has been more than willing to work on addressing the current inequities
in the Cooperative Unit program. I would ask the gentleman, would the
subcommittee be interested in exploring this model as a new way to deal
with this issue? If necessary, this could be done in the next Congress.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KILDEE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Saxton), and he agrees there is a legitimate issue of
fairness involved. As the gentleman from Michigan may know, his home
State of New Jersey is another State that suffers under the present
system. He would be interested in working with the gentleman and other
members of the committee to find an alternative in the near future.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
interest, and I look forward to working with the gentleman from
Maryland and with the gentleman from New Jersey to find a sensible
solution to this problem.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) to further add to this great
piece of legislation.
(Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Alaska (Chairman Young) and also the gentleman from California (Mr.
Miller), ranking member, for moving H.R. 1481 to the floor so
expeditiously, despite the fact that we have so many other things
coming to a conclusion at the end of the 105th Congress. The resources
Committee, like others, face a daunting list of requests from Members,
and for the fact that this bill has moved so quickly I am grateful on
behalf of myself and other Great Lakes Members.
I also express my appreciation for the work of the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Saxton), chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries
Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. He made time in his subcommittee's
schedule to hold hearings, and he has been a strong supporter of H.R.
4181 throughout the process.
I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not thank the staff that
made today's presentation possible. Many times, Members make
commitments and while these commitments are honored, it is due
primarily and in large part to the hard work of our staffs.
I thank the committee staffs of both the majority and the minority,
in particular Harry Burroughs and Mike Oetker. Mike has done yeoman's
work on H.R. 1481, putting in long hours and making sure that this bill
stayed on track.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank Rochelle Sturtevant, who is the
coordinator for the Great Lakes task force who has been working on this
legislation since 1996.
Mr. Speaker, my district borders Lake Erie, a body of water that was
once considered to be ``dead.'' I paraphrase Mark Twain when I say that
the reports of the Great Lakes' demise have been greatly exaggerated.
This would not be possible, of course, without the efforts of the Fish
and Wildlife Service, working with State and local governments, as well
as Great Lakes residents.
Now, Lake Erie fishermen can enjoy catching lake trout, walleye,
bass, and perch. In fact, Lake Erie is experiencing rebounds in lake
whitefish populations that just 10 years ago was thought to be
impossible. Last year, the Fish and Wildlife Service report that lake
trout populations in Lake Superior are now self-sustaining and need no
further stocking.
Basinwide, water-related recreation and tourism are valued at $15
million annually, almost half of which is derived from fishing.
Moreover, the Great Lakes contain over 281 square miles of coastal
wetlands which provide habitat for endangered species and breeding
grounds for waterfowl, migratory birds and fish.
While this is a great success story, the job of restoring the Great
Lakes is a work in progress. Yes, we have come a very long way, but
considering we still face degraded habitats, reduced fish and wildlife
populations and the threat from nonindigenous species, we must press
on.
The Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act reauthorizes
legislation passed in 1990, with the same title, to continue this
important mission.
The original act established the Great Lakes Coordination Office and
Fishery Resources Offices in Michigan, Wisconsin and New York. The 1990
act also led to the formation of a Great Lakes ecosystem team,
including partners from the States Native American tribes and the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission, to coordinate restoration efforts between
levels of government and agencies.
[[Page H8468]]
Finally, the 1990 act directed that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service undertake a comprehensive study of fishing resources in the
Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Fishery Resource Study, which the Fish and
Wildlife Service completed and reported to Congress in 1995, contained
32 specific recommendations for projects that would successfully
restore the Great Lakes fishery resource.
The Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act will reauthorize
the Great Lakes Coordination Office and Fishery Resources Offices of
the Fish and Wildlife Service, allowing them to continue coordinating
internal Fish and Wildlife Service operations and other Fish and
Wildlife Service activities with State, Federal, local and
international operations in the Great Lakes Basin.
{time} 1430
These coordination efforts are critical to prevent programs from
wasting resources and precious funds by working at cross-purposes.
In addition, 1481 sets up a new grant program to enable States and
Native American tribal groups to carry out restoration projects that
implement the specific recommendations contained in the 1995 study. On
the issue of invasive and noninvasive species, the Great Lakes Fish and
Wildlife Restoration Act will continue to provide the resources to help
stop the influx of these creatures. And in regard to the sea lamprey,
the legislation ensures that authority for sea lamprey control is
retained by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
Additionally, the Secretary of the Army, upon request by the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission, may improve water resources projects related
to sea lamprey management. However, nonFederal entities will be
responsible for 25 percent of the cost of implementing any proposal
other than those involved in construction of sea lamprey barriers. For
Members who are unfamiliar with the sea lamprey, in addition to looking
like something that comes out of a horror movie, the sea lamprey is a
parasite and each lamprey can destroy 10 to 40 pounds of fish during
its lifetime.
The Great Lakes are an incredible success story. It is one that no
one would have believed just a few years ago. The Great Lakes Fish and
Wildlife Restoration Act will build upon this success.
This is bipartisan legislation. It has strong support in the other
body. In fact, it is my understanding that if H.R. 1481 receives
favorable consideration today, the other body will take it up
immediately.
Relative to the observations made by our distinguished colleague from
Michigan, I am fully aware of the fact that he has championed the cause
about which he spoke today on the floor. It is only because of some
resistance in the other body that we were not able to address that in
this legislation. He would have my pledge that I would do everything in
my capacity from Ohio to help him realize his goals and success in that
regard.
I would urge all of our colleagues today to support this essential
bipartisan measure.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I rise in support of this legislation. This legislation has been
adequately described by our colleagues from Michigan and Ohio. It has
bipartisan support and the support of the administration. I urge its
passage today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation.
H.R. 1481, which has already been described by the gentleman from New
Jersey, would greatly improve the conservation and management of the
fisheries and wildlife of the Great Lakes by implementing the
recommendations of the Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration study.
The Great Lakes provide a vast source of natural resources for the
people of the United States. In 1990, Congress authorized the
restoration study to assess the status and needs of the fishery and
wildlife resources of the Great Lakes and to provide recommendations
for better management and conservation of those resources. Now that the
study has been completed, it is time to implement those recommendations
to ensure the long term sustainability of these valuable resources.
The bill has bipartisan support, as well as the support of the
Administration, and I urge its passage today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would like to make a very quick comment to the gentleman from Ohio
who said that Mark Twain made a comment that the early demise of the
Great Lakes is greatly exaggerated. I think in order to continue to
make that statement humorous, those of us in the House must continue to
work vigilantly, steadfastly with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
LaTourette), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and other Members
to ensure that we understand the nature of the mechanics of natural
processes so that the Great Lakes cannot only continue to be great but
we can restore them to what they were 100 years ago.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Ehlers).
(Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I first of all want to commend the sponsor
and cosponsors of this bill as well as the committee members. It is an
excellent bill. It will serve the Great Lakes well.
I particularly commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) for
continuing in his efforts to be a conservator of the Great Lakes. He
has done a tremendous amount of good work here on that score. I hope he
continues.
There is one point in the bill I do want to raise because it might
create some problems for Michigan. I simply want to get this on the
record and perhaps get some assurances from either the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) or the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest)
regarding the language here. The bill says that there is established
the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Proposal Review Committee
which shall operate under the guidance of the Council of Lakes
Committees. The Review Committee shall consist of representatives of
all State directors and Indian tribes with Great Lakes Fish and
Wildlife management authority in the Great Lakes Basin.
The language in the report is similar to that in the bill but also
adds, ``* * * nothing in this bill shall be construed to enlarge or
diminish the authority of any Indian tribe with respect to the
management of fish and wildlife in the Great Lakes Basin.''
There is a problem relating to this that just came to my attention
during a call I received from the Governor's office in Michigan. As
some of my colleagues may be aware, there have been several court cases
on the issue of Indian fishing rights in Michigan, resulting in a
substantial number of court decisions. And my concern is that this
language in the bill might be interpreted to say that those tribes
which have been given certain rights in court cases would be regarded
as having management authority. If that were true, then we might well
have 5 or 6 times more representatives of Indian tribes than from the
State of Michigan on this commission. That would make it somewhat
unbalanced.
I assume the intent was not to do that and I want to get that on the
record. Perhaps both the chairman and the sponsor of the bill can
assure me that that is not the intent, and that in fact we will use and
interpret the language as it was originally intended.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, we will continue to look at this very
closely. That certainly is not our intent. Our intent with this
legislation is to ensure that all participating parties improve the
quality of the Great Lakes Basin, not to give one any more advantage
over another.
Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1481, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof)
[[Page H8469]]
the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``To amend the Great
Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 1990 to provide for
implementation of recommendations of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service contained in the Great Lakes Fishery Resources
Restoration Study.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________