[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.

                          ____________________