[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 46 (Wednesday, April 12, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H2149-H2156]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE CLEAN LAKES PROGRAM
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walden of Oregon). Pursuant to House
Resolution 468 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill, H.R. 2328.
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2328) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
reauthorize the Clean Lakes Program, with Mr. Gillmor in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, perhaps most importantly, I want to
commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) for his leadership in
being the principal architect and author of this legislation to
reauthorize and improve the Clean Lakes Program.
This bill will help restore and protect our Nation's 41 million acres
of fresh water lakes by reauthorizing the EPA Clean Lakes Program. The
bill authorizes $250 million of grants to help States clean up their
lakes, and it increases to $25 million the amount to help States
mitigate against the harmful effects of acid mine drainage and acid
rain.
The EPA no longer requests funding under the Clean Lakes Program, and
has forced the States to stretch their limited nonpoint source funds to
clean up their lakes. This legislation restores this important program
and places a national focus and a priority on our lakes. It allows
funds to solve the wide range of problems impairing our many lakes.
Very importantly, Mr. Chairman, it relies on locally-based solutions
involving restoration, rather than new Federal regulations.
I certainly want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar), the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), and the entire
committee for their support in moving this environmental legislation
forward. It passed the subcommittee and the full committee unanimously
by voice vote. I know of no opposition to it.
I would certainly urge overwhelming support for this important
environmental legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2328, to reauthorize the
Clean Lakes Program. I want to express my appreciation to our chairman
for his support of this initiative and for launching the hearings
directing the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert), to move ahead with this legislation, which is a derivative
of and an extension of the monumental Clean Water Act of 1972.
That legislation, which I had the privilege to participate in as a
member or administrator of the staff of the Committee on Public Works
and Transportation at the time, was then, as it still is, one of the
most far-reaching and successful environmental laws Congress has ever
enacted.
We have made a lot of progress over the years with the Clean Water
Act. It is going on 30 years. One of the reasons is the collaborative
partnerships that the act established between the States and the
Federal Government to restore and maintain, as the opening directive of
that act provides, restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters.
We have not quite reached the objective of swimmable and fishable in
all of the Nation's waters, but we are moving in the right direction.
Section 314 of that act established the Clean Lakes Program. That
program directs EPA to work with the States to identify and implement
programs to control, reduce, and mitigate levels of pollution in the
Nation's lakes.
It has been a valuable resource to reduce pollution. We have funded
approximately $145 million of grant activities since 1945 in 49 States
and 18 Indian tribes, 700 individual site assessments, restoration, and
implementation projects. But it is only a start.
The most recent national water quality inventory shows that States
have reported that only 40 percent of lake acreage across this country
has been assessed to determine whether the lakes meet the designated
uses. Of that number, 40 percent are still impaired in some fashion.
That means that 30 million acres of lakes across this country have a
significant likelihood that the waters are not safe for fishing,
swimming, or to support aquatic life in the lake and in the surrounding
basin.
Body contact sports was one of the principal objectives of the Clean
Water Act of 1972, so people could indeed use the lakes: swim, fish,
walk through the lake waters on the edge, as we do with small children
in Minnesota and elsewhere across this country. But we have not
attained that objective.
This bill will help move us in that direction. It reauthorizes the
Clean Lakes Program through 2005. It increases significantly the level
of funding to $50 million a year. The funding would be directed to the
States to diagnose the current condition of individual lakes and their
watershed, to determine the extent and source of pollution, to develop
lake restoration and protection plans that can actually be implemented,
not just ideas and studies that remain on a shelf and gather dust, but
plans that can actually be implemented.
Secondly, to address the concern of acidity in lake levels, in lakes
across this country, we provide authorization for programs aimed at
restoring lake water quality and mitigating the harmful effects of lake
acidity. Canada actually was ahead of the United States in addressing
the problem of acid rain.
Sweden was ahead of Canada. It was in the mid-1970s that Swedish
scientists examined lakes that were in the early stages of death, death
from acid rain coming from the Ruhr Valley in Germany, traveling over a
thousand miles and being deposited on Swedish lakes that soon became
clear, so clear you could see right to the bottom, no fish, no plant
life. Dead lakes.
We were slow to assess that problem and appreciate the United States.
Canada caught on first because the prevailing winds carry acid
depositions from the United States north into Canada. Canada mounted a
massive counterattack on acid rain problems, and that led to the U.S.-
Canada Air Quality Agreement, in addition to the U.S-Canada Great Lakes
Quality Agreement, that has resulted in restoration in lakes in Canada
that were nearing the death levels of lakes in Sweden.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation will move us further along in the
United States, in the direction of addressing the problems of the
harmful effects of acid rain and high lake water acidity. This
legislation also adds four lakes to the priority demonstration projects
included in the Clean Lakes Program, one of which is Swan Lake, which
is in my district, which is of tremendous regional significance for the
people living in the iron ore mining country; a 100-square-mile lake in
Itasca County that includes the City of Nashwauk, northeast of that
lake, there are a wide
[[Page H2150]]
range of recreational activities very popular there in the 5 months or
6 months that we can actually enjoy lake activities when they are not
frozen over in Minnesota, boating, fishing; significant economic
benefit to the entire region.
Mr. Chairman, the water quality has deteriorated over the years, poor
soil surrounding the lake and poor lake edge protection and watershed
protection, as well as sewage into that lake. We will be able to
address this problem and learn from it and apply its lessons elsewhere
across the country and across, of course, my own State of 10,000 lakes,
which really is about 15,000, actually more than that. We do not really
count lakes under 200 acres.
Mr. Chairman, I am really delighted; and I wanted to compliment the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Boehlert), our subcommittee chairman, for their support
and also the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), who does not
have as many lakes in his district, but who has been very generous in
giving his strong support for this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Boehlert), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee
on Water Resources and Environment.
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2328 reauthorizes the Clean Lakes
Program, and we have one person in this Chamber to thank most for that
action and that is our colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Sweeney). The gentleman deserves to be commended for the leadership he
provided.
This is an example of how the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure serves this institution and this Nation so well. We
worked out any differences we had in a bipartisan way and are marching
forward together.
Mr. Chairman, let me point out that the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure under the leadership of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar), the ranking member, are responsible for more legislation,
more successful legislation in this Congress than in the preceding
Congress, of greater significance than any other committee of this
institution. I am very proud to identify with the committee.
Let me say, unfortunately, that the Environmental Protection Agency
has not requested funding for the Clean Lakes Program and the program
has not received separate appropriations in recent years. Instead,
States have been encouraged to fund clean lakes activities by using
funds provided under section 319 of the Clean Water Act for already
underfunded nonpoint source programs.
Mr. Chairman, acting to reauthorize this program will send a clear
message that we care about restoring and protecting our Nation's 41
million acres of fresh-water lakes for our children and their children.
Congress is not the only voice calling for this program. Various public
and private organizations involved in lake water quality management had
been seeking an increase in funding for the Clean Lakes Program.
This program is seen as an important component of meeting the Clean
Water Act's objective of having all our Nation's waters fishable and
swimmable. In addition, there is growing concern about the damaging
effects of acid rain and acid mine drainage on the Nation's lake.
Separate, adequate and consistent funding for the Clean Lakes Program
is necessary to meet the needs of the States' lake program.
The Clean Lake Program offers an excellent opportunity for watershed-
based community-driven projects, as well as needed partnerships among
Federal, State, and local entities. It is a good program. It deserves
our enthusiastic support for all the right reasons.
Let me once again commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney)
for the leadership he has provided, and let me once again proudly
associate with my colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure for doing the deed today.
Let me leave with this thought from Henry David Thoreau who said in
Walden back in 1854: ``A lake is the landscape's most beautiful and
expressive feature. It is earth's eye: looking into which the beholder
measures the depth of his own nature.''
{time} 1400
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for yielding me this time and also to thank
him for his leadership on this issue and so many issues that come
before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
I also want to commend our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Boehlert), and our full committee chairman, my colleague,
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), for working with us in a
bipartisan manner which is, of course, the way this committee always
works; and again I would add that is why we are so successful.
I also want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), the
author of this bill, for pushing and shoving and making sure this piece
of legislation comes before us.
Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong support of H.R. 2328, a bill
to reauthorize the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Lakes
program. The Clean Lakes program was enacted in 1972 with the passage
of the Clean Water Act, to provide additional funding to assess and
control pollution levels in our Nation's lakes.
This program has served as a valuable resource for States to identify
the sources of pollution, as well as to develop and implement programs
aimed at reducing pollution levels in and restoring the quality of lake
systems.
The bill we are considering would reauthorize the Clean Lakes
program, providing up to $50 million annually through 2005.
In addition, in order to address the persistent problems of high
acidity in our Nation's lakes, this legislation would increase the
authorization for programs aimed at reducing the levels of toxins
present in these water bodies.
Funding under this program could be used in developing new and
innovative methods of neutralizing and restoring the natural buffering
capacity of lakes, as well as other methods for removing toxic metals
and other substances mobilized by high acidity.
Finally, H.R. 2328 would add four additional lakes to the list of
priority demonstration projects authorized under the Clean Lakes
program.
These lakes have been identified by the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure as regionally significant and deserving of
additional attention under this program.
Mr. Chairman, I urge an aye vote on this legislation. I again want to
thank the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Oberstar), for yielding me this time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Sweeney), the principal author of this legislation.
(Mr. SWEENEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I first want to start by thanking my
chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster), from the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for providing the great
leadership, the great management skills and guidance throughout all of
the dealings in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; as
well as the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar); the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking
member on the subcommittee.
When I came to Congress a year and a half ago, a lot of people said
that Republicans and Democrats could not work together; we could not
get the people's business done. I think if the American people were to
look at the work being done by this Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, they would be incredibly impressed. As a freshman
Member of Congress, I know I am and I am thankful. I am thankful
because this piece of legislation is being passed today at a very
important time.
[[Page H2151]]
Recently, Mr. Chairman, the GAO released a study that I had requested
on the problem of acid rain in the Adirondack Mountains, which is a
region that is consumed by the 22nd Congressional District, which I
represent. The results were striking. Many of our lakes in the
Adirondacks are increasingly at risk from acid rain, much more than the
EPA had originally forecast.
Despite power plant emissions reductions under the 1990 Clean Air Act
amendments, nearly half of our lakes have shown an increase in nitrogen
levels.
In fact, last year a similar EPA study showed an expansion of the
effects of acid rain throughout. However, acid rain is not the only
problem that our Nation's lakes are facing. They are facing problems
such as invasive species, degraded shorelines, mercury contamination,
wetland loss, lake-use conflicts, fisheries imbalances, and nonpoint
source pollution, are all threatening our 41 million acres of
freshwater lakes.
This is part of the reason why I introduced H.R. 2328, and the other
is because my district, as in many parts of the Nation, the lakes are a
way of life. They provide a quality of life for the citizens who live
near them. Whether it is tourism, drinking water, the natural habitat
for many species of birds, fish and other animals, or simply
recreation, many communities derive their livelihood from freshwater
sources.
Additionally, Mr. Chairman, I should point out that I have been
disappointed in the EPA's attempt to shift funding requests under this
program to section 319, which deals with nonpoint source pollution
management. Our lakes are important enough to qualify and compete with
other programs for Federal funding, and that is why we need this
reauthorization program today.
I believe this program is something we can all agree on. During its
heyday in the 1970s and the 1980s, this program was popular with grass-
roots organizations and citizens because it offered them the
opportunity to work with Federal, State, and local entities on both
prevention and remediation of pollution.
Fundamentally, this program focuses on restoration, not regulation.
Some of the past successes included what happened in the State of
Florida, when they did an assessment of the 7,000 freshwater lakes to
set up a lake management priority system. The grant helped the State
prioritize its lakes and their watershed for remedial management
programs.
In New York and Vermont they used a grant and teamed up to assess
phosphorus pollution in Lake Champlain and set up a plan to monitor the
phosphorous load in the lake.
North Dakota used a clean lakes grant to seek correlations between
micro-invertebrate communities and the trophic status of lakes.
The results of these grants can help other States that might face
similar problems, and without this program States and their communities
will probably not have the resources or technical expertise to conduct
studies for themselves.
Mr. Chairman, this is a positive environmental initiative that I
think a broad group of philosophies in this House can agree upon. It
will provide resources to the most local levels of government to
address environmental challenges in our lakes.
Previously, the Clean Lakes program was a uniquely effective, cost-
efficient environmental program that provided seed money to State lake
programs to projects on public lakes.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important
legislation, and again I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Chairman Shuster) for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for yielding me this time; and the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Sweeney) for his leadership; the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for his leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2328, a bill to
reauthorize the Clean Lakes program. This program recognizes the beauty
and value of our lakes and the need to protect and restore these
wonderful resources. It is high time we reauthorize and fund the Clean
Lakes program.
As we know, the Clean Lakes program was established in 1972 as part
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the
Clean Water Act. The authorization expired in 1990, and the program has
not been funded since 1995 when the EPA stopped requesting money to run
it.
While the EPA may have stopped requesting money for clean lakes, I
have not, since New Jersey has many lakes that need attention and
immediate attention. As a member of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and
Independent Agencies, I have consistently supported a separate
appropriation for the section 314 program. Perhaps with the passage of
this bill, a clean lakes earmark will now be possible at the
appropriations level.
As we know, section 319 deals with watershed restoration issues.
Section 314 deals with lake monitoring and protection and management
issues. Although related, these two issues are different and should not
have to compete for limited dollars.
Mr. Chairman, we have had a sad experience in New Jersey where the
lumping together of section 314 and section 319 simply has not worked.
This bill would move us towards correcting that problem, and I strongly
support it.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the very great significance of this legislation is
underscored in many of the lakes and the communities throughout
Minnesota. We are blessed, as other less fortunate communities across
the country would like to be, in that many of our towns have a lake
right in the town. Over the years, before the 1960s, before we had a
clean water program, many towns just allowed their storm sewers to
discharge into the lakes. Many even allowed their sanitary sewers,
after primary treatment, to discharge into lakes. Then they began to
realize what an important resource the lake is and diverted sewage away
from it and diverted street runoff away from the lakes, although many
in the northern tier continued to pile up snow from winter storms on
the lake. Where else? It seemed sensible. Let it melt, add to the
lake's waters. Now we know that there is pollution in winter as well as
in summer. Cities now avoid that tragedy inflicted upon the Nation's
lakes.
So what we have is many lakes that should be great resources for
swimming, for tourism, for boating, for fishing, that have substantial
amounts of pollution embedded in the lake bottom. In the sediment under
those waters, plants grow up, transmit the pollutants to the fish who
feed on the plant life, and then humans consume the fish and in turn
find embedded in their body cells the pollutants that we all know are
so harmful.
Why is this legislation so important? Because cities can have access
to funds to develop plans to clean up those lakes, restore them perhaps
not to their pristine original condition created by the glaciers when
they retreated 10,000 years ago, but at least to be swimmable, to be
fishable, to be usable, to be a community attraction rather than a
point of shame for a community.
This legislation will provide States, through States to communities,
the resources, financial resources, they need to make their lakes the
great treasures that they should be. As the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Boehlert) so poetically described in the closing words of his
remarks on the House Floor, lakes should be the eye through which a
community sees itself and sees its treasurers.
So I have great hopes for this legislation; and I want to take this
opportunity to urge the administration to, in the future, include
funding for the Clean Lakes program, which they have not done for
several years, and to urge our colleagues on the Committee on
Appropriations, it was very encouraging to have the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) address the issue rather directly, that
enactment of this legislation will give the Committee on Appropriations
an opportunity to provide funding for the Clean Lakes program. That
will be the ultimate success of this legislation.
[[Page H2152]]
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I urge an aye vote on H.R. 2328, the Clean Lakes
program, because it helps restore and protect our Nation's 41 million
acres of freshwater lakes. It helps States clean up their lakes, and it
mitigates the harmful effects of high acidity like acid rain.
Now, one may ask why is this particular bill, H.R. 2328, needed? It
is because of the pollution or habitat degradation that impairs 39
percent of the 17 million acres which have already been surveyed. EPA
currently requires States to stretch their limited nonpoint source
funds to clean up their lakes. H.R. 2328 restores a national focus and
priority on our lakes.
I think it was very instructive, as the distinguished ranking member
pointed out, the problem of such things as acid rain and how in Europe
acid rain from the Ruhr Valley caused problems all the way up in
Sweden.
{time} 1415
Certainly here in the United States, acid rain knows no State
boundaries. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why we need to have a
national program, because certainly acid rain is something that crosses
State lines, and the acid rain from one State can very seriously damage
the lakes of another State, as has, in fact, been the case.
Now, the background to this program, which was established under
section 314 of the Clean Water Act, provides for financial and
technical assistance to States in restoring publicly owned lakes. In
recognition of the unique water quality challenges, facing our Nation's
lakes, Congress included the Clean Lakes Program as part of the
original 1972 Clean Water Act.
Section 314 contains various State assessment and reporting
requirements, a national demonstration program, and an EPA grant
program for assistance to States in carrying out projects and program
responsibilities.
On June 23, 1999, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney)
introduced H.R. 2328. This was referred solely to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. H.R. 2328 would reauthorize funding
for the Clean Lakes Program for fiscal years 2000 through 2005, and
would increase the authorized annual funding levels from $30 million to
$100 million.
On October 18, 1999, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment held a hearing on Clean Lakes and Water Quality Management
and on H.R. 2328. On March 8, 2000, the Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment marked up H.R. 2328.
The subcommittee adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
This amendment, A, reduced the funding authorization from $100 million
annually to $50 million annually; and, B, added additional lakes to the
list of lakes to receive priority consideration for demonstration
projects; and, C, increased the special authorization of financial
assistance to States to mitigate harmful effects of high acidity from
acid deposition or acid mine drainage from $15 million to $25 million;
and, D, prevented the report to Congress on the Clean Lakes
Demonstration Program from expiring under the Federal Reports
Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995.
The subcommittee reported H.R. 2328, as amended, favorably to the
full committee. On March 16, 2000, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure reported the bill as amended by the subcommittee by
unanimous voice vote.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much time
remains on each side.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has 16\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has
14\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Brown).
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Minnesota for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in working with the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar), the ranking member, concerning Lake Apopka in Florida.
Florida, as my colleagues know, is one of the third largest States,
and Lake Apopka is the second most polluted lake in the State of
Florida.
We have been harmed by many years of agricultural storm water
discharges, as well as historical discharges of both domestic and
industrial waste water. Because of this, this particular lake has been
in the news. Many Federal officials have come down, and there is a lot
of concern as to how this relates to the community.
I am hoping that the committee will look into Lake Apopka as we move
this bill through the process and consider adding this to the list.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, could the gentlewoman
from Florida describe for us the size of the lake in acres. Does the
gentlewoman from Florida have that information available?
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I do
not have it, but I will have that information for the gentleman from
Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentlewoman from Florida, are
boating activities prevalent on the lake? I yield to the gentlewoman
from Florida.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, in fact, I have been in
touch with the Water Management District, and they will forward that
information.
In reviewing the bill, I was very concerned that Florida was not
represented in the bill. Of course this lake is crucial to the State of
Florida.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentlewoman from Florida, is it
a lake that is used considerably for fishing as well?
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Fishing, Mr. Chairman. But, as I said, there
has been a shift in the usage because of the contamination of the lake.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, but because the lake
waters are contaminated, the fish are probably not fit for sustainable
human consumption.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will further
yield, that is correct. Also, there has been a shift in the vegetation
and wildlife in communities around the lake because of the polluted
facility.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, this certainly is the type of lake and
these are the conditions that this legislation seeks to address. The
authority provided in the legislation for grants to States and through
States to municipalities is the appropriate venue for the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Brown) to pursue this matter.
We will certainly, on the committee, be very happy to support the
gentlewoman's interest in seeing that there are adequate resources when
appropriations are made. There are no appropriations available now. The
point of this legislation is to authorize expanded funding through a
program from EPA of grants to States and through States to
municipalities or other lesser units of government that then will
undertake cleanup plans.
It would be useful if the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) could
provide us with any restoration plan that either the city or county or
joint powers agreement authority may have developed for the cleanup of
this lake and any other supporting information, as the gentlewoman has
already indicated. I am sure the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman
Shuster) will support us in the initiative of appealing to EPA at the
appropriate time for consideration of this project.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly concur with the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown)
and will be very happy to work on this with them to find an adequate
and acceptable solution.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
[[Page H2153]]
consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), the principal
author of this legislation.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
for yielding me the time. I echo the thoughts of the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Brown) and hope that we can work together in finding a
solution.
The beauty of this legislation really is that it provides an
opportunity for localities and people in communities to really interact
and do some positive proactive work.
I have got a letter here from a Robert Mac Millan, who is the
chairman of the Saratoga Lake Protection and Improvement District. I
would like to read it because it will give people the sense of the
kinds of things and kinds of people that are interested in this.
Dear Congressman Sweeney:
I am writing to you in support of your Clean Lakes Bill
which will be the subject of a legislative hearing.
I am the Chairman of the Saratoga Lake Protection and
Improvement District (SLPID). The SLPID was created as
political subdivision of New York State in 1986 to supervise,
manage, and control Saratoga Lake. Our primary
responsibilities are to enhance recreational use of Saratoga
Lake, protect real property values, conserve fish and
wildlife and enhance the scenic beauty of the Lake. We are
funded primarily by a special tax assessment placed by
lakefront property owners. This tax assessment was increased
65.9 percent for the tax year 2000 and will still fall short
of funding necessary to control all of the actions we need on
the Lake.
Saratoga Lake is experiencing a major increase in aquatic
weed growth and zebra mussels which adversely affects all
aspects of our Lake. One of the most invasive weeds is
Eurasian Water Milfoil, a plant not native to North America.
Our primary method of weed control has been mechanical
harvesting, but we find that harvesting is not accomplishing
control of the aquatic weed problem. We have applied for a
permit from New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation to treat two of the problem areas in the Lake
with aquatic herbicide. This treatment will be closely
monitored for effectiveness and incorporated in a lake
watershed and management plan which is presently ongoing.
I am aware of the Federal Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance
Prevention and Control Act of 1990 which was to mitigate the
financial impact of non-indigenous aquatic species such as
Eurasian Water Milfoil and zebra mussels on local
governments. Our current effort to control the weed in
Saratoga Lake through the use of an EPA and New York State
approved herbicide may be an excellent demonstration project
which could be useful to other lakes experiencing similar
problems with non-native aquatic species. Providing our
treatment efforts are successful this year we hope to obtain
funding to accomplish a whole lake treatment during 2001.
Mr. Chairman, I read this letter and bring this letter to the floor
to point out this will be the norm. This will be the norm that occurs
throughout this Nation as we fight to preserve our clean water sources.
This bill being passed today is coming at a crucial time, as I stated
before, especially since we have taken many significant steps in the
last decade to reduce the effects of pollutants, especially nitrates
and sulfur dioxide throughout. But in some respects, we are losing that
battle.
This will provide us a ground-up approach to that effort. This will
give us the opportunity for people in the local communities to fight
for these valuable resources. I am very proud to be the sponsor of this
bill, and I look forward to its implementation.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for a general debate has expired.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the
bill shall be considered by sections as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment, and pursuant to the rule, each section is
considered read.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
The Clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. GRANTS TO STATES
Section 314(c)(2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
act (33 U.S.C. 1324(c)92)) is amended by striking
``$50,000,000'' the first place it appears and all that
follows through ``1990'' and inserting ``$50,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2001 through 2005''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
There being no amendments to section 1, the Clerk will designate
section 2.
The text of section 2 is as follows:
SEC. 2. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
Section 314(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1324(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``Otsego Lake, New York;
Oneida Lake, New York; Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania; Swan
Lake, Itasca County, Minnesota;'' after Sauk Lake,
Minnesota;'';
(2) in paragraph (3) by striking ``By'' and inserting
``Notwithstanding section 3003 of the Federal Reports
Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (31 U.S.C. 1113 note; 109
Stat. 734-736), by''; and
(3) in paragraph (4)(B)(i) by striking ``$15,000,000'' and
inserting ``$25,000,000''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2?
There being no amendments to section 2, are there further amendments
to the bill?
Amendment Offered By Mr. Stupak
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Stupak:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF BULK FRESH WATER SALES FROM GREAT
LAKES.
Section 314 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1324) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Prohibition of Bulk Fresh Water Sales From Great
Lakes.--
``(1) In general.--As a condition of the receipt of grant
assistance under this section in a fiscal year, the
Administrator shall require a State to provide assurances
satisfactory to the Administrator that the State will
prohibit in such fiscal year the sale of bulk fresh water
from any of the Great Lakes.
``(2) Bulk fresh water defined.--The term `bulk fresh
water' means fresh water extracted from any of the Great
Lakes in amounts intended for transportation by tanker or
similar form of mass transportation, without further
processing. The term does not include drinking water in
containers intended for personal consumption.''.
Mr. STUPAK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment which is
very important to the residents in my district and many congressional
districts throughout the Great Lakes region.
My amendment would prevent the sale of fresh water from our Great
Lakes. Our precious water resources should not be sold to the highest
bidder, and we must ensure that this cannot happen.
Our Great Lakes are a tremendous recreational resource. They provide
boating, water skiing, fishing, and swimming opportunities. Our lakes
are also a tremendous source of drinking water. Most notably, of
course, are the Great Lakes, which contain 20 percent of the world's
fresh water supply.
The 35 million people residing near the Great Lakes have always
appreciated the lakes' beauty, vastness, cleanliness, and now they must
appreciate that it is also a targeted commodity.
{time} 1430
In 1998, a Canadian company planned to ship 3 billion liters of water
from Lake Superior over 5 years and sell it to Asia. I offered
legislation that was passed by the House of Representatives that called
on the United States Government to oppose this action. The permit was
subsequently withdrawn. The demand for water continues, however, as
freshwater supplies dwindle throughout the world.
In the United States, each person consumes 100 gallons of water each
day. The global demand meanwhile doubles every 21 years. Think about
it. The world water demand doubles every 21 years. The World Bank
predicts that by 2025 more than 3 billion people in 52 countries will
suffer water shortages
[[Page H2154]]
for drinking or sanitation. Where, I ask, will countries find clean,
fresh water? They will look to alternative sources, sources which are
outside their area and, more likely, outside their borders.
It is understandable, therefore, that the pristine water of our Great
Lakes will be targeted. The method is real. The threat is real. To
those who say the bulk shift of fresh water is not economically
feasible, I say, look around us. From Newfoundland in Canada, to Lake
Superior in Michigan, to Alaska, several companies are competing to
ship our precious freshwater resources overseas.
For those who take a short-term view of protecting this resource,
bulk sales of fresh water must seem irresistible. Throw a hose in the
water, hook up a pump, and fill an ocean tanker. Maximum profits with
minimum overhead. A windfall if a State wanted to license this kind of
operation.
Yes, our Great Lakes are renewable; but they are not replaceable. I
am very concerned that shortsighted policies could allow for large-
scale diversions of Great Lakes water, threatening the environment, the
economy, and the welfare of the Great Lakes region.
We are not merely citizens of the Great Lakes. We are their
guardians. We are their stewards. We are their protectors. We encourage
conservation, and we return 95 percent of all the water taken from the
Great Lakes.
Setting aside global water use and trade policies, I ask Members to
consider how bulk diversion of Great Lakes water could jeopardize our
efforts to be good stewards. In terms of water quality, if we permit
bulk diversions to further lower water levels, we increase the
concentration of runoff contaminants, of fuel pollution. As lake levels
drop, which they are now, we increase the need for dredging to maintain
our vital waterways, further compounding the problem with toxic
sediments.
We must consider all threats posed to our Great Lakes. We must be
conscious of the threat posed by the sale or diversion of Great Lakes
water just as carefully as we weigh the impact of the invasive species
or drilling for gas and oil in the Great Lakes. None of these concerns
are truly independent of one another in terms of their potential impact
on the 35 million people who depend on our most vital natural resource,
the Great Lakes, our great treasures.
My amendment would withhold grant assistance from Great Lakes States
which allow the sale of bulk fresh water from the Great Lakes. This
restriction would apply to water extracted from a lake for mass
transportation without further processing and does not apply to bottled
water used for consumption.
The cleanup of our lakes will preserve their beauty for generations
to come. The ban on water sales from our Great Lakes will also preserve
their beauty and our greatest natural resource for generations to come.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
I rise not so much in opposition to the concept. In fact, not at all
in opposition to the concept. I support very vigorously the idea that
the gentleman is trying to advance, but I do not support the vehicle
that he has chosen to approach this subject.
The matter of diversion of water from the Great Lakes is an issue of
very great concern to those of us who live in this heartland of the
United States. The Great Lakes represent 20 percent of all the fresh
water on the face of the Earth. Lake Superior represents half of that
water. Lake Superior is equal to all the water of the other four Great
Lakes. It is a vast resource. The only other lake in the world that
approaches the volume and the enormity of Lake Superior is Lake Baikal
in Russia.
We have been vigilant, on both the U.S. and the Canadian side, about
the water quality, about the volume of water, through the international
joint commission; about the rising or falling levels of water in the
Great Lakes. We have also been concerned that there may be attempts by
water-short areas of the North American continent and water-short areas
of other places on the face of the Earth that may have their eyes fixed
on the Great Lakes.
Beginning with the coal slurry pipeline in 1970, the eyes of the
western States were fixed on the Great Lakes, admittedly under the
guise of selling low sulfur coal in an economical transport means of
pipeline to the lakehead in Duluth, where then it could be transferred
to tankers for lower lake port power plants. But those of us who
maintain vigil on the shores of Gitche Gumee said this also has the
capacity of draining the water out of the lakes. They could reverse
those pumps. Once they are that close to Lake Superior, they could just
drop a pump in the lake and start shipping the water westward. We
vigorously opposed and ultimately stopped the coal slurry pipeline.
In 1986, in furtherance of this concern, I offered an amendment in
committee in the Water Resources Development Act, in cooperation with
Democrats and Republicans throughout the Great Lakes States, to
require, before any water could be diverted out of any of the Great
Lakes, unanimous consent of the governors of the Great Lakes States
and, though we could not bind, the province of Ontario. That province
is so vast it covers all five of the Great Lakes. And we succeeded in
getting that language enacted. It has been successful until very
recently in scaring off potential diverters.
Then, in 1998, a Canadian company based in the Province of Ontario
got up the idea of selling, in bulk means, water from Lake Ontario to
overseas sources. An immediate outcry rose in the Province and, of
course, on the U.S. side of the Great Lakes that resulted in the
Province of Ontario denying a permit to withdraw water. But the
potential remains for withdrawing water from one of the Great Lakes and
bottling it in little containers. And if it can be bottled in pint and
quart and gallon and 5 gallon sizes, then what is to prevent someone
from shipping it in larger containers of 5,000 or 10,000 gallons or
more?
So the concern of my good friend, who maintains a watchful eye from
his northern peninsula, upper peninsula, a Michigan outpost, on the
lake is well placed and fully founded and justified.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Oberstar was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. So I compliment the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, on his
vigilance on this matter, but I feel that the vehicle is not
appropriate. It has, first of all, not had widespread scrutiny in our
committee. We have not had an opportunity until just now to review the
approach the gentleman takes.
It has been my intention that, in cooperation with the gentleman from
Michigan and others of our colleagues in the Great Lakes States, to
approach this subject in the forthcoming Water Resources Development
Act of 2000.
I would like to ask my colleague if he would consider withdrawing the
amendment, preserving the option and, of course, protecting his right
to come forth in the WRDA bill and to cooperate with us in a similar
venture.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding. If
there is going to be a WRDA bill, that is the first if. Secondly, if we
will be given an opportunity to offer the amendment.
We have a bill; it is 2595. As the gentleman knows, the International
Joint Commission on February 22 put forth their recommendations on what
should be done to not only stop vast transfers of water out of the
Great Lakes region but also what should be in the meantime to make sure
the States provide the necessary data and information so we can make
intelligent decisions concerning our water resources. Not just for
transfer or sale but also for the ecology of it, for the environment,
and for the conservation.
So if we would have a WRDA bill, and if we were to be given the
opportunity to appear before the committee to present H.R. 2595, my
bill on the Great Lakes, or a modified version taking in the
International Joint Commission's recommendations, I would be willing to
entertain that.
I see we probably have a number of more speakers, so I would like to
hear the other speakers before I withdraw the amendment.
[[Page H2155]]
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar)
has once again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Oberstar was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, if I might inquire of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) regarding the formulation. I think we may be
at the end of hearings, or there may be an opportunity for further
hearings on the WRDA bill, but it is my understanding that the chair of
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure intends to proceed
with a WRDA bill for 2000.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it is certainly our intention to move the
WRDA bill this year, WRDA 2000. The administration just sent their bill
up, so we will be dealing with it.
And I would say to my good friend from Michigan that we certainly
want to work with him. I do not think this is the appropriate vehicle.
The WRDA bill would seem to be more appropriate.
We just received this amendment, literally handed to us. So while we
are aware of the basic issue the gentleman is attempting to address,
which is complex and which is very important, we are quite happy to
work with the gentleman to see if we cannot accommodate him on a more
appropriate vehicle, such as the WRDA bill or another related piece of
legislation.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it does seem to me
that WRDA is the appropriate vehicle, and I further yield to the
gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. STUPAK. The few times I have done bills on Great Lakes to
preserve and protect the Great Lakes, they have been bipartisan bills.
I would like to remain in that bipartisan atmosphere. At times, it gets
a little difficult, when we have people outside the Great Lakes coming
into our region and our districts and making wild statements about our
lack of protection of the Great Lakes. So we are always vigilant to
look for opportunities to protect our Great Lakes and our Great Lakes
resources.
As long as I am a Member of Congress, I will continue to work day in
and day out to protect the Great Lakes. Based upon the assurances from
the chairman and the ranking member, however, I will look forward to
working with both the chairman and the ranking member to work to
protect the Great Lakes in the WRDA bill, WRDA 2000.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the
gentleman for his leadership on this issue, for his vigilance, his
concern, and for his statesmanship in making this unanimous consent
request. And I want to assure the gentleman that we will work very
closely and very diligently toward his objective.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
Are there further amendments to the bill?
Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. --. SENSE OF CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT REGARDING NOTICE.
(a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--In
the case of any equipment or products that may be authorized
to be purchased with financial assistance provided under this
Act, it is the sense of the Congress that entities receiving
such assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase
only American-made equipment and products.
(b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing
financial assistance under this Act, the head of each Federal
agency shall provide to each recipient of the assistance a
notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the
Congress.
(c) Notice of Report.--Any entity which receives funds
under this Act shall report any expenditures on foreign-made
items to the Congress within 180 days of the expenditure.
Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we do not
know what this amendment is, have not seen it or heard about it, have
not smelled it. This is a surprise.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this is a standard Buy American
amendment that has been added to every transportation bill that we have
offered.
{time} 1445
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has an
amendment to this bill at the desk.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object. May we have
a copy of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will rereport the amendment.
The Clerk rereported the amendment.
Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has
reserved a point of order.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to notify the committee
that I did bring this to the floor earlier this morning but I have been
testifying before the Committee on Ways and Means and would have
apprised the leadership of it. But it is an amendment that has been
passed to every probation bill and every authorizing bill that involves
the expenditures of funds. It has not been a controversial bill in the
past. I do not believe it should be at this point.
In any event, it encourages the purchases of American-made products.
Anyone who gets assistance under the bill shall get a notice of
Congress intention to urge them, wherever possible, to buy American-
made products.
Finally, anyone who is getting these funds give us a report back when
they spend the money how they spend that money.
Now, we are running about a $300 billion trade deficit. I think if we
are going to go ahead and spend money for goods and services that those
goods and services, wherever possible, should be American goods and
services.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to withdraw my point of
order. Having had the opportunity now to see the amendment, it is a
buy-American amendment, which I have vigorously supported in the past
and am happy to support today.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the
gentleman, and I apologize to both gentleman from having not been here
to explain it to them earlier.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), of course we have had buy-American
provisions in other legislation of this committee. But the Part B of
the sense of Congress, does the notice to recipients in Part B flow
from the sentence in the previous subsection (a), that is, the sense of
Congress, so that Part B is also a sense of Congress and not a
requirement in law that, in providing financial assistance, the head of
each agency shall provide a notice?
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, section (b) states
that, even though it is the sense of the Congress that they are not
mandated to buy American, section (b) mandates that the agency shall at
least make notice that the Congress encourages the purchase of American
products.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
[[Page H2156]]
the sense of Congress language terminates with subsection (a) but
subsection (b) is a requirement upon Federal agencies to provide
notice.
Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Shuster), is that the understanding of the chairman?
Part B of the Buy-American provision is a requirement upon Federal
agencies providing assistance to provide a notice and to report.
Mr. Chairman, is that consistent with the understanding of the
chairman? I just want to make this clear.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I guess that is what the language says.
There might be a technical problem with some of the language which we
would have to work out in conference here.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time to clarify the
concern of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the Congress
urges the recipients of this money to buy American, but the Congress
also requires those agencies that give the money to give them a notice
that Congress does encourage them to buy.
They are not compelled to buy, but what they are compelled to give is
a notice and give us a report on the activity.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
is it his understanding that this applies only to the legislation
before us today?
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, absolutely, to this specific bill and
this bill alone. I will have another amendment for his next bill very
similar.
Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments?
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Camp) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gillmor, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2328) to amend
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Clean Lakes
Program, pursuant to House Resolution 468, reported the bill back to
the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________