[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 46 (Wednesday, April 12, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H2156-H2163]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CHESAPEAKE BAY RESTORATION ACT OF 1999
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 470 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. 3039.
{time} 1454
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. 3039) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to assist
in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, and for other purposes, 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, I certainly want to commend the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Bateman) for his leadership on this legislation that is going to
help protect one of our national treasures, the Chesapeake Bay.
The Bay has a 64,000 square mile watershed and is home to over 15
million people and more than 3,000 plant and animal species. Bay
restoration efforts are working well. Striped bass, underwater grasses
are back, toxic releases are down, more than 67 percent since 1988 in
fact, and the nutrients have been reduced.
However, parts of the Bay remain impaired. This legislation will
strengthen cooperative efforts to address the remaining work to be done
to restore and to protect the Bay.
I would emphasize that this legislation passed the subcommittee and
the full committee unanimously by a voice vote, and I know of no
controversy.
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 strongly support H.R. 3039, the Chesapeake Bay
Restoration Act. The Chesapeake Bay is one of the great estuaries of
the world, perhaps the greatest, the meeting place of salt and fresh
water where new forms of life are created.
Those forms of life, whether new forms or existing ones, are
increasingly endangered in the world's estuaries by the pollution that
we discharge into the waters and into the meeting places.
In 1983, the Federal Government and the States of Virginia, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, as well as the District of Columbia, signed the first
Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Four years later, the Federal Government and
the Bay States and the communities within them reached agreement on the
problems facing the Bay, the shared responsibility for deteriorating
conditions, and on the joint actions that were needed to slow and
reverse the destruction of this resource.
In the past 17 years, the hard work of all those involved is
beginning to bear fruit. The Bay is showing signs of improvement. But
the work is never over.
This legislation will take a further step toward improvement of water
quality and improvement of the overall health of the Bay ecosystem.
The legislation will reauthorize the Environmental Protection
Agency's successful Chesapeake Bay Program for an additional 6 years,
giving stability and strength to this very important initiative. It
will increase the program funding level. The Program Office of EPA has
been very successful in working collaboratively with the States and the
communities adjacent to the Bay in identifying causes of pollution,
building partnerships to restore the health of that enormous resource.
Under this legislation, EPA will continue the cooperative
collaborative approach of developing interstate management plans,
control harmful nutrients, control the addition of toxins to improve
water quality, and restore habitats to the ecosystem.
In addition, the legislation will incorporate into the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement those improvements jointly recommended by the participating
States, including recommendations for the administrator and authority
for the administrator to approve small watershed grants to fund local
governments and nonprofit organizations for local protection and
restoration programs.
If we do not address the health of the Bay by including the
watersheds that
[[Page H2157]]
drain into that Bay, we have not accomplished the purpose of
preserving, restoring, and enhancing the quality of the waters of the
Bay. That, I think, is the most important feature of this legislation,
that it deals with the watershed and not just with the discharge
points.
I strongly support the legislation and urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of
the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Development.
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for once again
providing, along with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the
ranking member, leadership on the full committee. I want to express my
deep appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the
ranking member of our Subcommittee on Water Resources and Development.
Once again, this is time to highlight something that needs to be
highlighted. We do not do it often enough. I know we do it in the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We do a lot of things
exceptionally well. But we have the best professional staff anywhere on
the Hill or in any governmental unit and they deserve a lot of praise.
{time} 1500
I will defer to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) and the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), people who live in the zone
who are just married to the Chesapeake Bay and who know so well the
importance of that great resource and what we need to do to make
certain we move forward to restore it.
With that, let me thank all who have been partners to this venture.
We have come a long way. We have got further to go. We are going to get
there together.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, who has maintained a
vigilant eye on the bay and on the water quality thereof.
(Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3039, the
Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act of 1999. This legislation would
reauthorize the successful Chesapeake Bay program for an additional 6
years. This program, operating with the Environmental Protection
Agency, has been very effective at protecting and restoring the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem through workable partnerships among the
Federal Government, the District of Columbia, and the States
surrounding the bay watershed. I also want to acknowledge, Mr.
Chairman, the outstanding work of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Bateman) in developing and pursuing this legislation.
H.R. 3039 builds upon the success of the Chesapeake Bay program by
incorporating within it several improvements which have been
recommended by the Federal Government and the other signers of the 1987
Chesapeake Bay agreement: Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia,
and my home State of Pennsylvania. Included within this bill is
authority for a new small watershed grants program. Funding for this
new program would be available to local governmental and nonprofit
organizations as well as individuals in the Chesapeake Bay region to
implement local protection and restoration programs in the watershed to
improve water quality and create, restore or enhance habitat within the
ecosystem. Mr. Chairman, the Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure
struggling toward restoration. This legislation will add greatly in
that restoration. I urge an aye vote on this legislation.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman), the principal author of this
legislation.
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
for yielding me this time. I would like to say to him and to the
ranking member and to all those who have addressed this subject matter
today that I am proud to have lived near the shores of the Chesapeake
Bay all but 5 years of my life. It is a very dear part of the world. I
am proud to have been associated with the creation of the original
Chesapeake Bay program and its original authorization and my role in
convincing the then Reagan administration that it should be the
bellwether of their environmental program, which even deserved mention
in the President's State of the Union address.
The Chesapeake Bay program is the unique regional partnership that
has been coordinating the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay since the
signing of the historic 1983 Chesapeake Bay agreement. As the largest
estuary in the United States and one of the most productive in the
world, the Chesapeake Bay was the Nation's first estuary targeted for
restoration and protection. The Chesapeake Bay program evolved as the
means to restore this exceptionally valuable resource. H.R. 3039 will
continue the cooperative Federal, State, and local efforts that already
have successfully achieved progress restoring the bay.
Since its inception in 1983, the bay program's highest priority has
been restoration of the bay's living resources. Improvements include
fisheries and habitat restoration, recovery of bay grasses, nutrient
and toxic reductions, and significant advances in estuarine science.
However, parts of the bay remain impaired. Nutrients are still too
high, oyster populations have been in severe decline, and water clarity
still has a great deal that needs to be done to improve it. By passing
H.R. 3039, the House will declare its commitment to saving the bay.
The Chesapeake Bay program has not been reauthorized since the
expiration of the Clean Water Act of which it was a component. Although
the program has continued to receive funding annually since then, it is
important that the Congress express its continued support for the
cleanup and preservation of the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay
Restoration Act would do just that, reauthorizing the program from 2000
to 2005. In addition, the bill requires the submission of reports both
to the Congress and the public describing the activities funded by the
program and its accomplishments.
The Chesapeake Bay is one of the most vital natural resources in the
United States. Please join me in supporting the enhancement of a
program that has done so much to preserve this wonderful resource.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who has been a vigilant participant in
protecting the resources of the bay. I am grateful for his leadership.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Minnesota
for yielding me this time, but more importantly let me thank the
leadership on both sides of the aisle for bringing forward this very,
very important bill. I think we all can be very proud of what we have
been able to do in the Chesapeake Bay, the Federal Government being one
of the major partners. I particularly want to acknowledge the work that
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) has done over his entire
congressional career on the Chesapeake Bay.
The constituents of my district and in Maryland, indeed the entire
Nation, are very much gratified by what we have been able to accomplish
through the leadership here in Congress. I see the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) who has been another one of the real leaders
on the Chesapeake Bay issues. This has been one of the largest
voluntary multijurisdictional water quality and living resource
restoration programs in the history of our Nation, and it has been a
model program that we can now use in many other multijurisdictional
bodies of water.
I was Speaker of the House in Maryland in 1983 when Governor Hughes
on behalf of the State of Maryland joined with the governors of
Virginia and Pennsylvania and the mayor of Washington and the
administrator of EPA and signed a one-page 1983 agreement that started
the Chesapeake Bay Restoration program with a Federal partnership. It
has been a partnership of
[[Page H2158]]
government, the Federal, State and local; it has been a partnership
between government and the private sector; and it has worked.
We set one of the most ambitious goals for reducing pollutants in
nitrogen and in phosphorus by 40 percent by this year. Mr. Chairman, we
have come very close to meeting those goals in a watershed the size of
64,000 square miles. We have never attempted such a broad program in
the past. I think we all can be proud. This reauthorization bill not
only reauthorizes but expands it, increases the Federal Government's
partnership in this effort, which gives us great hope for the future.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment
requiring the administrator to commence a 3-year study to develop model
water quality and living resource improvement strategies for areas
impacted by development using work currently under way in the Patapsco/
Back River tributary in the Baltimore, Maryland, metropolitan area. My
amendment would have specified that the administrator's study,
conducted with the full participation of local governments, watershed
organizations, and interested groups, develop a coordinated mechanism
and make various determinations and recommendations to achieve water
quality and living resource goals in areas impacted by development with
particular reference to Gwynn Falls, Jones Falls, and Herring Run
watersheds.
Am I correct that the gentleman's intent is to encourage EPA, the
Chesapeake Executive Council, and interested governmental and
nongovernmental entities to work together on studies and strategies
relating to water quality and living resources in areas impacted by
development?
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. The gentleman certainly is correct. We want to
acknowledge his strong interest in this particular issue. We appreciate
his cooperation. We look forward to working with him and other
colleagues on cooperative, consensus-based approaches to protecting the
Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. CARDIN. I want to thank the gentleman for those kind words and
also thank my friend again from Minnesota for yielding.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, we certainly share the view just
expressed by the chairman on the gentleman's concerns and his intent,
and we will look forward to working with the gentleman on a consensus-
based, cooperative approach to protecting the Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), one of the champions of
the Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time. This has been a bipartisan effort on both sides of the
aisle, from the chairman of the committee to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). Certainly I would like to honor on this day
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman), who has worked literally his
entire career on these issues and his heart is in this greatest of
estuaries, which the gentleman from Minnesota has so eloquently stated.
I also want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for his
efforts and all of us that have worked together on this particular
issue.
When John Smith came here well over 300 years ago, there were a few
thousand people in the watershed. Now there are over 15 million people
in the watershed. With this new census, there might be 16 or 17 million
people in the watershed. So things are difficult. To manage this
watershed, we need more than just one State doing their job. We need a
multistate effort to ensure that human activity is in such a way that
we certainly encourage economic development; but we encourage that
economic development to be in harmony with the natural processes of
nature so the bay can continue to be restored.
I do not think we can ever get the bay back to the way it was when
John Smith was here. We will never restore the bay to its original
grandeur, and we will never solve the problem. From now until the end
of time, the end of human habitation, this Chesapeake Bay program is
going to be vital, because we continue to have development, we continue
to have agriculture, we continue to have a whole range of issues,
including air deposition from as far away as the Midwest causes about a
third of the nutrient overload in the Chesapeake Bay.
And so this multistate agreement is vitally important for us to learn
how to reduce the nutrients, and we have found some key factors; and we
are becoming successful in that. One of the other issues of the
Chesapeake Bay program is to bring the bay grasses back that provides
the necessary habitat for the resource, which is crabs and fish and a
whole range of other things in this marine ecosystem. The bay was not
intended to be a desert. Maybe the Sahara Desert has a good ecosystem,
maybe the Antarctic has a good ecosystem; but the Chesapeake Bay was
intended to have grass, subaquatic vegetation for the natural ecosystem
to abound. The Chesapeake Bay program is figuring out, with our help,
the relentless, sometimes tiring, effort to bring that resource back to
the bay.
Toxic pollution. With the Clean Water Act back in 1972 when they
began to think about point source pollution, we began to solve that
problem. We still have toxic pollution in the Chesapeake Bay, whether
it still comes from chemical factories that we are trying to resolve
and doing a good job at or point source pollutions like sewage
treatment plants that need upgrades. Those are the kinds of issues that
the Chesapeake Bay program deals with. It is vital.
The Chesapeake Bay program also deals with the fisheries. The oyster
population is down over 90 percent from what it was at the turn of the
century. Now that we are in a new turn of the century, it is time to
bring those oysters back and in a manner in which nature intended, by
building oyster reefs, maybe 10 feet high, maybe 20 feet high, to
perpetuate that particular species. Striped bass recovery we know is
pretty successful. The fisheries is a part of the Chesapeake Bay
program.
I have one quick comment about a particular species called menhaden
which also filters out certain nutrients in the bay like the oysters.
The Chesapeake Bay program has recommended an ecosystem approach to
that particular fisheries management plan where the menhaden, you give
a few to the commercial watermen that use it for a variety of reasons,
you give a few to the recreational fishermen, whoever wants to eat
menhaden, pretty oily. But you also make sure that you give a certain
number of menhaden to the rock fish that need it to sustain themselves,
and you give a certain quantity of menhaden to the Chesapeake Bay so
that a filtering action can occur.
{time} 1515
Mr. Chairman, the Chesapeake Bay program is vital.
I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) for his
efforts, and I want to thank all the members of this committee that
have moved this program forward. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this bill.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a fellow Pitt grad; the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), a Pitt grad; the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Bateman); the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), a leader on
conservation issues; and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), I
am proud to support this, but I have had some of my companies call me
and want to know if there will be any of this debris in the form of
truckloads of polluted material needing abatement that will become part
of an RFP, because my companies would certainly want to bid on it.
I think that this legislation would require, if there is some
polluted soil or some polluted sediment underneath the Bay, in the form
of a colloquy, I will ask the chairman, would it require that perhaps
some of this sediment be removed? Would this bill cover that?
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H2159]]
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the answer to the gentleman's question
will be found in each of the remedial action plans developed by the
communities and the States and EPA in conjunction with each other. And
those plans, depending on the nature of the problem to be addressed,
may require sediment removal. Some of them, in fact, will require
sediment removal, but we are not in a position to say which ones or how
much.
That information, by the way, would be available from each of the
States and from the localities because it all has to be part of the
public record, and the companies in the gentleman's district can
certainly access that information through the appropriate State agency.
I am quite certain that the remedial action plans for each community
or council of governments or State will undoubtedly require some
sediment removal in order to remove the toxics from the ecosystem.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, there is annual dredging that takes
place in the Chesapeake Bay, millions of cubic yards behind the three
hydroelectric power dams in the Susquehanna River that have right now
over 200 million cubic yards of sediment that eventually within the
next 15 years has to be removed, otherwise the U.S. geological survey
said it would smother the entire Chesapeake Bay floor if something is
not done.
There are problems with the dredge material on an annual basis. There
are problems with the dredge material behind the Susquehanna River
damages. So if something could be worked out in the next few years to
figure out where to put this stuff and if Ohio wants it, we would be
more than glad to trade it out.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I know there has
been some talk about possibilities of sediment, and when they start
their remediation program, it will involve cleaning up those toxic
polluted areas. The point I am making is exactly that, that there are
some areas that do not have the capability of cleaning those soils, and
I do have in my impoverished district companies that do, in fact, take
soil and clean that soil and make it acceptable under EPA law.
Mr. Chairman, we would certainly want to have our companies on notice
so if there is any RFP that have an opportunity to bid. That is why I
made the mention, and I want to commend the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Gilchrest) because I know he is probably the biggest fighter in
the House for conservation purposes.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster)
for his leadership in bringing this bill before us on the floor, and
thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member;
obviously, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) for initiating
this; and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), my colleague
from Maryland, for his wonderful explication of some parts of it.
The Chesapeake Bay, our Nation's largest estuary, is an incredibly
complex ecosytem. The Bay is one of our Nation's most valuable natural
resources. Its rich ecosytem with rivers, wetlands, trees, and the Bay
itself supports and provides a national habitat for over 3,600 species
of plants, fish, and animals.
We know that over 15 million people now live in the Bay watershed, it
includes parts of six States and the entire District of Columbia. These
persons are, at all times, just a few steps from one of the more than
100,000 stream and river tributaries ultimately draining into the Bay.
Every person, plant, and animal depend on each other to help the
Chesapeake Bay system thrive and function properly. These complex
relationships are countless. The Chesapeake Bay Program is a unique
regional partnership of State and Federal Government agencies, and it
has been encouraging and directing the restoration of the Bay since
1983.
I am pleased that important progress has been made in renewing the
Bay since the Chesapeake Bay Agreement was signed in 1983. Restoration
efforts, led by the Chesapeake Bay Program, have had a profound effect
on the health of the Bay. In addition, scientific research has led to a
better understanding of the Bay, including how it works and what must
be done to address problems.
However, we still have a long way to go before we reach our goals for
a restored Chesapeake Bay. Many questions about the future of the Bay
remain unanswered. For example, blue crabs, perhaps the best known and
most important resource of the Bay, have been below the long-term
average level for several years. The oyster harvest has declined
dramatically. Further efforts to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution
are needed. I am pleased that this legislation today will help us
address these concerns and allow us to move toward the goal of a
restored Chesapeake Bay.
You know, Mr. Chairman, in only 10 days we recognize and celebrate
the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. Every year on this day, the people
of our Nation and across the globe focus their attention on the
environment. Both Earth Day and the legislation before us today offer
us the opportunity to applaud our progress, but, more importantly, they
allow us to renew our commitment to the challenges facing our planet
and the Chesapeake Bay. We must preserve and protect this treasure.
Mr. Chairman, I support the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act and urge
its swift, unanimous passage.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin, (Mr. Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Minnesota for yielding
me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3039, the Chesapeake
Bay Restoration Act. I want to commend my colleagues for the leadership
they provided, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman); the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest); the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cardin); and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); as well as the
leadership on the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman
Shuster); and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski).
Mr. Chairman, this bill seeks to reauthorize Federal participation in
the Chesapeake Bay Program. It will provide the Environmental
Protection Agency with $30 million over 6 years to fund program
activities that will prevent harmful nutrients and toxins from flowing
into the Chesapeake, where they will degrade water quality and damage
valuable fish and wildlife resources. It also mandates other Federal
agencies to assist in the development of watershed planning and
restoration activities.
I strongly support the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act and the
Chesapeake Bay Program, because they embody an approach to water
quality and watershed management that I believe is truly the wave of
the future. This approach is, first of all, proactive, rather than
reactive, seeking to stop harmful nutrients and toxins from making it
into the Bay in the first place, rather than relying on expensive
clean-up and mitigation efforts afterwards.
Secondly, this approach is basin-wide, rather than piecemeal, seeking
to look at the entire ecosystem and to development management plans
appropriate to the large scale physical system that it is.
Finally, this approach relies on interagency and intergovernmental
cooperation, attempting to coordinate the diverse, but sometimes
fragmented, conservation efforts of Federal, State and local agencies,
as well as non-governmental agencies.
I want to compliment the Members from the Chesapeake Bay Basin States
who have fashioned the bill and supported the Chesapeake Bay Program
since its inception some 15 years ago.
I also want to take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to urge my
colleagues
[[Page H2160]]
to take a close look at a bill that I recently introduce, H.R. 4013,
the Upper Mississippi River Basin Conservation Act. Like H.R. 3039, my
bill is comprehensive legislation to reduce nutrient and soil sediment
losses in a large river basin. The Upper Mississippi River Basin, which
encompasses much of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri,
is a tremendously valuable natural resource.
Forty percent of North America's waterfowl use the wetlands and
backwaters of the river as a migratory flyway. In fact, it is North
America's largest migratory route, with much of the waterfowl such as
Tundra Swans ultimately going through the Mississippi corridor and
ending up in the Chesapeake Bay area.
The Upper Mississippi River provides $1.2 billion annually in
recreation income and $6.6 billion to the area's tourism industry.
Unfortunately, increasing soil erosion threatens this region and these
industries. For instance, soil erosion reduces the long-term
sustainability and income of the family farms, with farmers losing more
than $300 million annually in applied nitrogen. Additionally, sediment
fills the main shipping channel of the Upper Mississippi River, costing
roughly $100 million each year for dredging costs alone.
Relying on existing Federal, State, and local programs, H.R. 4013
establishes a water quality monitoring network and an integrated
computer modeling program. These monitoring and modeling efforts will
provide the baseline information needed to make scientifically sound
and cost-effective conservation decisions.
The bill calls for an expansion of four U.S. Department of
Agriculture land conservation programs. In addition, the bill includes
language to protect personal data collected in connection with
monitoring, modeling and technical and financial assessment activities.
In trying to achieve these goals, this bill relies entirely on
voluntary participation and already existing conservation programs. The
bill will not create any new Federal regulations.
The Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act and my bill, the Upper Mississippi
River Basin Conservation Act, are basin-wide, comprehensive efforts to
reduce harmful runoff and improve the overall health of these
regionally and nationally significant ecosystems. I urge my colleagues
to support H.R. 3039 today and to contact my staff and helping a sure
passage of H.R. 3014.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member of the Committee on
Agriculture.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express some concerns about H.R. 3039.
I do so reluctantly, but for several reasons. My first concern is the
role of the Department of Agriculture in this effort. A great deal of
the focus and efforts involved in getting to a cleaner and healthier
Chesapeake Bay are on its upstream tributaries, and a great deal of
farmland is included in these watersheds. I am particularly concerned
that it appears neither the Committee on Agriculture nor the USDA were
consulted in regard to this reauthorization.
We have heard how this bill simply puts into statute what is already
taking place. I believe as it is part of a reauthorization, a thorough
discussion should take place regarding the best ways to accomplish the
goals of the program and whether the current structure is accomplishing
that.
That leads to my questions about why current authorized programs are
not being utilized or modified, if necessary, to accomplish the
outlined goals, as opposed to putting forward a new program or
authority. This has led to a number of programs out there, and in the
case of conservation and environmental protection, a number of
authorities that are not interconnected and do not have adequate
resources to meet the demands for assistance.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern
with Agriculture not being consulted, the perception that they were not
consulted about this piece of legislation. But I can tell the gentleman
that with regard to the Chesapeake Bay Program, the biggest industry in
my business is agriculture, and USDA and the Departments of Agriculture
in Maryland, Delaware, Virginia and Pennsylvania have all worked
through a variety of existing programs to ensure the quality of water
in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries via many agricultural
programs that exist, for example, the Buffer Program, the Waterway
Program, the program that provides habitat for wildlife, the CRP
Program.
{time} 1530
So there is a whole range of programs that the Chesapeake Bay
program, which is EPA, consults with these other agencies to ensure
water quality, and also the biggest thing I would like to say, I say to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), is to ensure that agriculture
remains not only a viable industry but a profitable industry.
Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman for those comments.
Just as I was about to say, I have no doubt that the USDA agencies
and their partners, the conservation districts and resource
conservation and development councils, are already taking an active
role in many of the actions springing out of the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement.
I concur. In fact, one of the major roles of USDA in the conservation
district is to provide technical assistance to whoever might need it.
Whether it is technical assistance or other types of assistance, the
USDA agencies and their partners have and will find ways to provide
that assistance to whoever might be asking, whether they be a private
individual, a nonprofit group, or a local government.
I am also concerned about this legislation and similar bills that are
targeted to specific geographic locations. I am certain they are all
worthy pieces of legislation, and I support the gentleman and the
others in the Chesapeake Bay's effort because they are right on target.
My concern is the duplication.
I appreciate the watershed approach. That is the way to go. I am
joining today with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) in
introducing the Fishable Waters Act, which would provide much needed
guidance and funding to any and all States to address water quality
problems that have led to fisheries habitat problems.
My concern, though, is funding. When we continue to divide, issue
after issue, when we continue to say USDA, that is doing a wonderful
job, but not doing good enough, so therefore, we are going to take EPA
and we are going to grant them money to provide technical assistance
when we are already shortchanging, here.
We talk about the environmental quality incentive program. It is
funded at $200 million a year, but we only spend $174 million.
Appropriations cut us short. We look at the Wildlife Habitat Incentives
Program. The small watershed program is the one, though. We have 1,630
projects right now approved, needing $1.5 billion in funding. We are
funded at $91. I believe this bill further divides already scarce
resources, and that is my concern.
Mr. Chairman, CRP--Authorized at 36.4 million acres--currently 31
million acres enrolled--up to 3.5 million acres in bids received in
20th sign-up; WRP--Authorized at 975,000 acres--estimated to have
935,000 acres enrolled by end of 2000; Wildlife Habitat Incentives
Progam--Funded at $50 million in 1996 Farm Bill and funding already
exhausted; PL-566 (Small Watershed Program)--1630 projects approved
needing $1.5 billion in funding--funded at $91 million in FY00; and
EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentives Program)--Funded at $200 million
per year in 1996 Farm bill--appropriators have limited funding to $174
million in each of last three fiscal years--demand is three times
greater than available funding.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a diligent member of the Committee.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, since being elected to Congress, I have been focusing
attention on the issue of creating livable communities where families
are safe, healthy, and economically secure. The
[[Page H2161]]
quality and quantity of our water supply is going to be the primary
shaper of our communities in the next century.
This is one of the reasons why I am here today, pleased to join in
rising in support for the fine work that the committee has done, and
thanking the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), and others in focusing attention and
making sure that we are able to continue the great work that has been
done in the Chesapeake Bay area.
It has been documented already on the floor of the Chamber today the
vast sweep of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the 64,000 square miles
covering parts of six States talking about the problems that are faced
here that are serious but not unique to the Chesapeake Bay system, and
how the Chesapeake Bay is a great example of watershed-wide management;
how we are excited about the multijurisdictional involvement of many
shareholders dealing with the EPA, dealing with State and local
authorities, and other disciplines, and the legislative bodies of three
States, bringing into involvement a vast coalition of people outside
the government sweep, of agencies, nonprofits, and private citizens;
the tributary teams in Maryland, divided into ten major tributaries and
teams made up of citizens, farmers, business interests,
environmentalists, and others, who determine the primary issues in
their watersheds, and how to go about educating and involving citizens
based on the idea that the problems are different depending on where
you are.
The good news is that through all of this effort, the Bay is
improving, albeit slowly. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has put
together a report card on the Bay. The score was up to 28 last year, up
from the historic low of roughly 23 in 1983, on their way towards a
goal or a rating of 70.
I appreciate the elements that are included in H.R. 3039 to support
the EPA Bay program and its activity in the watershed, the pollution
prevention, restoring activities, monitoring, grants to States, and
other stakeholders and citizen involvement.
I am here, though, not just to commend my colleagues on the committee
and the others who are involved. I do hope that we are able as a
committee and as a Congress to incorporate the lessons that we have
learned with the Chesapeake Bay clean-up, and perhaps even in this
Congress have a comprehensive piece of legislation that we could
advance to our colleagues to make sure that the important approach that
has been taken with the Chesapeake Bay clean-up is not an exception,
but in fact it is the rule governing how we will approach these
important areas across the country.
Under the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Shuster), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert), with concerned members of the committee, with others in
Congress, we can make sure that these lessons that have been learned,
the dollars we are able to stretch, the engagement that we can have
with our citizens, become an important part of Federal policy.
If we are able to do that, Mr. Speaker, we will have given an
important gift to American citizens for Earth Day, not just one or two
models of an exemplary clean-up that hold a lot of potential for the
future, but a template that will guide the authorizing committee, a
template that will guide the appropriating committee, a template that
will guide across jurisdictions in the Federal government to show how
we can achieve a more livable community, looking at the way we can
manage our water resources.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to greater progress in the future.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). All time for general debate
has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
The text of H.R. 3039 is as follows:
H.R. 3039
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 ``Chesapeake Bay Restoration
Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure and a
resource of worldwide significance;
(2) over many years, the productivity and water quality of
the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed were diminished by
pollution, excessive sedimentation, shoreline erosion, the
impacts of population growth and development in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed, and other factors;
(3) the Federal Government (acting through the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency), the
Governor of the State of Maryland, the Governor of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, the Governor of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, the Chairperson of the Chesapeake Bay
Commission, and the Mayor of the District of Columbia, as
Chesapeake Bay Agreement signatories, have committed to a
comprehensive cooperative program to achieve improved water
quality and improvements in the productivity of living
resources of the Bay;
(4) the cooperative program described in paragraph (3)
serves as a national and international model for the
management of estuaries; and
(5) there is a need to expand Federal support for
monitoring, management, and restoration activities in the
Chesapeake Bay and the tributaries of the Bay in order to
meet and further the original and subsequent goals and
commitments of the Chesapeake Bay Program.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to expand and strengthen cooperative efforts to restore
and protect the Chesapeake Bay; and
(2) to achieve the goals established in the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement.
SEC. 3. CHESAPEAKE BAY.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act is amended by
striking section 117 (33 U.S.C. 1267) and inserting the
following:
``SEC. 117. CHESAPEAKE BAY.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
``(1) Administrative cost.--The term `administrative cost'
means the cost of salaries and fringe benefits incurred in
administering a grant under this section.
``(2) Chesapeake bay agreement.--The term `Chesapeake Bay
Agreement' means the formal, voluntary agreements executed to
achieve the goal of restoring and protecting the Chesapeake
Bay ecosystem and the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem and signed by the Chesapeake Executive Council.
``(3) Chesapeake bay ecosystem.--The term `Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem' means the ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay and its
watershed.
``(4) Chesapeake bay program.--The term `Chesapeake Bay
Program' means the program directed by the Chesapeake
Executive Council in accordance with the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement.
``(5) Chesapeake executive council.--The term `Chesapeake
Executive Council' means the signatories to the Chesapeake
Bay Agreement.
``(6) Signatory jurisdiction.--The term `signatory
jurisdiction' means a jurisdiction of a signatory to the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
``(b) Continuation of Chesapeake Bay Program.--
``(1) In general.--In cooperation with the Chesapeake
Executive Council (and as a member of the Council), the
Administrator shall continue the Chesapeake Bay Program.
``(2) Program office.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall maintain in the
Environmental Protection Agency a Chesapeake Bay Program
Office.
``(B) Function.--The Chesapeake Bay Program Office shall
provide support to the Chesapeake Executive Council by--
``(i) implementing and coordinating science, research,
modeling, support services, monitoring, data collection, and
other activities that support the Chesapeake Bay Program;
``(ii) developing and making available, through
publications, technical assistance, and other appropriate
means, information pertaining to the environmental quality
and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
``(iii) in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, and
local authorities, assisting the signatories to the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement in developing and implementing
specific action plans to carry out the responsibilities of
the signatories to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement;
``(iv) coordinating the actions of the Environmental
Protection Agency with the actions of the appropriate
officials of other Federal agencies and State and local
authorities in developing strategies to--
``(I) improve the water quality and living resources in the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; and
``(II) obtain the support of the appropriate officials of
the agencies and authorities in achieving the objectives of
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement; and
``(v) implementing outreach programs for public
information, education, and participation to foster
stewardship of the resources of the Chesapeake Bay.
[[Page H2162]]
``(c) Interagency Agreements.--The Administrator may enter
into an interagency agreement with a Federal agency to carry
out this section.
``(d) Technical Assistance and Assistance Grants.--
``(1) In general.--In cooperation with the Chesapeake
Executive Council, the Administrator may provide technical
assistance, and assistance grants, to nonprofit
organizations, State and local governments, colleges,
universities, and interstate agencies to achieve the goals
and requirements contained in subsection (g)(1), subject to
such terms and conditions as the Administrator considers
appropriate.
``(2) Federal share.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the Federal share of an assistance grant provided under
paragraph (1) shall be determined by the Administrator in
accordance with guidance issued by the Administrator.
``(B) Small watershed grants program.--The Federal share of
an assistance grant provided under paragraph (1) to carry out
an implementing activity under subsection (g)(2) shall not
exceed 75 percent of eligible project costs, as determined by
the Administrator.
``(3) Non-federal share.--An assistance grant under
paragraph (1) shall be provided on the condition that non-
Federal sources provide the remainder of eligible project
costs, as determined by the Administrator.
``(4) Administrative costs.--Administrative costs shall not
exceed 10 percent of the annual grant award.
``(e) Implementation and Monitoring Grants.--
``(1) In general.--If a signatory jurisdiction has approved
and committed to implement all or substantially all aspects
of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, on the request of the chief
executive of the jurisdiction, the Administrator--
``(A) shall make a grant to the jurisdiction for the
purpose of implementing the management mechanisms established
under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, subject to such terms and
conditions as the Administrator considers appropriate; and
``(B) may make a grant to a signatory jurisdiction for the
purpose of monitoring the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.
``(2) Proposals.--
``(A) In general.--A signatory jurisdiction described in
paragraph (1) may apply for a grant under this subsection for
a fiscal year by submitting to the Administrator a
comprehensive proposal to implement management mechanisms
established under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
``(B) Contents.--A proposal under subparagraph (A) shall
include--
``(i) a description of proposed management mechanisms that
the jurisdiction commits to take within a specified time
period, such as reducing or preventing pollution in the
Chesapeake Bay and its watershed or meeting applicable water
quality standards or established goals and objectives under
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement; and
``(ii) the estimated cost of the actions proposed to be
taken during the fiscal year.
``(3) Approval.--If the Administrator finds that the
proposal is consistent with the Chesapeake Bay Agreement and
the national goals established under section 101(a), the
Administrator may approve the proposal for an award.
``(4) Federal share.--The Federal share of an
implementation grant under this subsection shall not exceed
50 percent of the cost of implementing the management
mechanisms during the fiscal year.
``(5) Non-federal share.--An implementation grant under
this subsection shall be made on the condition that non-
Federal sources provide the remainder of the costs of
implementing the management mechanisms during the fiscal
year.
``(6) Administrative costs.--Administrative costs shall not
exceed 10 percent of the annual grant award.
``(7) Reporting.--On or before October 1 of each fiscal
year, the Administrator shall make available to the public a
document that lists and describes, in the greatest
practicable degree of detail--
``(A) all projects and activities funded for the fiscal
year;
``(B) the goals and objectives of projects funded for the
previous fiscal year; and
``(C) the net benefits of projects funded for previous
fiscal years.
``(f) Federal Facilities and Budget Coordination.--
``(1) Subwatershed planning and restoration.--A Federal
agency that owns or operates a facility (as defined by the
Administrator) within the Chesapeake Bay watershed shall
participate in regional and subwatershed planning and
restoration programs.
``(2) Compliance with agreement.--The head of each Federal
agency that owns or occupies real property in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed shall ensure that the property, and actions
taken by the agency with respect to the property, comply with
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the Federal Agencies Chesapeake
Ecosystem Unified Plan, and any subsequent agreements and
plans.
``(3) Budget coordination.--
``(A) In general.--As part of the annual budget submission
of each Federal agency with projects or grants related to
restoration, planning, monitoring, or scientific
investigation of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, the head of
the agency shall submit to the President a report that
describes plans for the expenditure of the funds under this
section.
``(B) Disclosure to the council.--The head of each agency
referred to in subparagraph (A) shall disclose the report
under that subparagraph with the Chesapeake Executive Council
as appropriate.
``(g) Chesapeake Bay Program.--
``(1) Management strategies.--The Administrator, in
coordination with other members of the Chesapeake Executive
Council, shall ensure that management plans are developed and
implementation is begun by signatories to the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement to achieve--
``(A) the nutrient goals of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement
for the quantity of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the
Chesapeake Bay and its watershed;
``(B) the water quality requirements necessary to restore
living resources in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
``(C) the Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxins Reduction and
Prevention Strategy goal of reducing or eliminating the input
of chemical contaminants from all controllable sources to
levels that result in no toxic or bioaccumulative impact on
the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem or on
human health;
``(D) habitat restoration, protection, creation, and
enhancement goals established by Chesapeake Bay Agreement
signatories for wetlands, riparian forests, and other types
of habitat associated with the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; and
``(E) the restoration, protection, creation, and
enhancement goals established by the Chesapeake Bay Agreement
signatories for living resources associated with the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.
``(2) Small watershed grants program.--The Administrator,
in cooperation with the Chesapeake Executive Council, shall--
``(A) establish a small watershed grants program as part of
the Chesapeake Bay Program; and
``(B) offer technical assistance and assistance grants
under subsection (d) to local governments and nonprofit
organizations and individuals in the Chesapeake Bay region to
implement--
``(i) cooperative tributary basin strategies that address
the water quality and living resource needs in the Chesapeake
Bay ecosystem; and
``(ii) locally based protection and restoration programs or
projects within a watershed that complement the
tributary basin strategies, including the creation,
restoration, protection, or enhancement of habitat
associated with the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.
``(h) Study of Chesapeake Bay Program.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than April 22, 2000, and every
5 years thereafter, the Administrator, in coordination with
the Chesapeake Executive Council, shall complete a study and
submit to Congress a comprehensive report on the results of
the study.
``(2) Requirements.--The study and report shall--
``(A) assess the state of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
``(B) compare the current state of the Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem with its state in 1975, 1985, and 1995;
``(C) assess the effectiveness of management strategies
being implemented on the date of enactment of this section
and the extent to which the priority needs are being met;
``(D) make recommendations for the improved management of
the Chesapeake Bay Program either by strengthening strategies
being implemented on the date of enactment of this section or
by adopting new strategies; and
``(E) be presented in such a format as to be readily
transferable to and usable by other watershed restoration
programs.
``(i) Special Study of Living Resource Response.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall
commence a 5-year special study with full participation of
the scientific community of the Chesapeake Bay to establish
and expand understanding of the response of the living
resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem to improvements in
water quality that have resulted from investments made
through the Chesapeake Bay Program.
``(2) Requirements.--The study shall--
``(A) determine the current status and trends of living
resources, including grasses, benthos, phytoplankton,
zooplankton, fish, and shellfish;
``(B) establish to the extent practicable the rates of
recovery of the living resources in response to improved
water quality condition;
``(C) evaluate and assess interactions of species, with
particular attention to the impact of changes within and
among trophic levels; and
``(D) recommend management actions to optimize the return
of a healthy and balanced ecosystem in response to
improvements in the quality and character of the waters of
the Chesapeake Bay.
``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2000 through 2005.''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. 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
[[Page H2163]]
designated place in the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be
considered as 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 the voting on the
first question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
Are there any 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
section 117 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 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 such section, 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 such section 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 pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the same as the
amendment offered on the last bill.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I understand this is the new and improved
version of the amendment which we have previously accepted. We are
pleased to accept this, as well.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed the gentleman's
amendment. It is in conformity with the rules of the House, and it is a
sense of Congress buy American amendment. We are happy to support Mr.
Buy America.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I urge an aye vote on the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to the bill.
If there are no further amendments, under the rule, the Committee
rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Crane) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gutknecht, Chairman pro tempore 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.
3039) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to assist in the
restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, and for other purposes, pursuant to
House Resolution 470, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment 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.
____________________