[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 110 (Wednesday, September 4, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6009-H6012]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GREAT LAKES LEGACY ACT OF 2002
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 1070) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
authorize the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to
make grants for remediation of sediment contamination in areas of
concern and to authorize assistance for research and development of
innovative technologies for such purpose, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 1070
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Great Lakes Legacy Act of
2002''.
SEC. 2. REMEDIATION OF SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION IN AREAS OF
CONCERN IN THE GREAT LAKES.
Section 118(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1268(c)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(12) Remediation of sediment contamination in areas of
concern.--
``(A) In general.--In accordance with this paragraph, the
Administrator, acting through the Great Lakes National
Program Office and in coordination with the Office of
Research and Development, may carry out qualified projects.
``(B) Qualified project.--In this paragraph, a qualified
project is a project to be carried out in an area of concern
located wholly or in part in the United States that--
``(i) monitors or evaluates contaminated sediment;
``(ii) subject to subparagraph (D), implements a plan to
remediate contaminated sediment; or
``(iii) prevents further or renewed contamination of
sediment.
``(C) Priority.--In selecting projects to carry out under
this paragraph, the Administrator shall give priority to a
project that--
``(i) constitutes remedial action for contaminated
sediment;
``(ii) has been identified in a Remedial Action Plan
submitted pursuant to paragraph (3) and is ready to be
implemented; or
``(iii) will use an innovative approach, technology, or
technique that may provide greater environmental benefits or
equivalent environmental benefits at a reduced cost.
``(D) Limitation.--The Administrator may not carry out a
project under this paragraph for remediation of contaminated
sediments located in an area of concern--
``(i) if an evaluation of remedial alternatives for the
area of concern has not been conducted, including a review of
the short-term and long-term effects of the alternatives on
human health and the environment; or
``(ii) if the Administrator determines that the area of
concern is likely to suffer significant further or renewed
contamination from existing sources of pollutants causing
sediment contamination following completion of the project.
``(E) Non-federal matching requirement.--
``(i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of a
project carried out under this paragraph shall be not less
than 35 percent.
``(ii) In-kind contributions.--The non-Federal share of the
cost of a project carried out under this paragraph may
include the value of in-kind services contributed by a non-
Federal sponsor, including any in-kind service performed
under an administrative order on consent or judicial consent
decree, but not including any in-kind services performed
under a unilateral administrative order or court order.
``(iii) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share
of the cost of the operation and maintenance of a project
carried out under this paragraph shall be 100 percent.
``(F) Maintenance of effort.--The Administrator may not
carry out a project under this paragraph unless the non-
Federal sponsor enters into such agreements with the
Administrator as the Administrator may require to ensure that
the non-Federal sponsor will maintain its aggregate
expenditures from all other sources for remediation programs
in the area of concern in which the project is located at or
above the average level of such expenditures in its 2 fiscal
years preceding the date on which the project is initiated.
``(G) Coordination.--In carrying out projects under this
paragraph, the Administrator shall coordinate with the
Secretary of the Army, and with the Governors of States in
which the projects are located, to ensure that Federal and
State assistance for remediation in areas of concern is used
as efficiently as possible.
``(H) Authorization of appropriations.--
``(i) In general.--In addition to other amounts authorized
under this section, there is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this paragraph $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2003 through 2007.
``(ii) Availability.--Funds appropriated under clause (i)
shall remain available until expended.''.
SEC. 3. RELATIONSHIP TO FEDERAL AND STATE AUTHORITIES.
Section 118(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1268) is amended--
(1) by striking ``construed to affect'' and inserting the
following: ``construed--
``(1) to affect'';
(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
or'';
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) to affect any other Federal or State authority that
is being used or may be used to facilitate the cleanup and
protection of the Great Lakes.''; and
(4) by aligning the remainder of the text of paragraph (1)
(as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with
paragraph (2) (as added by paragraph (3) of this section).
SEC. 4. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--In coordination with other Federal and
local officials, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency is authorized to conduct research on the
development and use of innovative approaches, technologies,
and techniques for the remediation of sediment contamination
in areas of concern in the Great Lakes.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--In addition to amounts authorized under
other laws, there is authorized to be appropriated to carry
out this section $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003
through 2007.
(2) Availability.--Funds appropriated under paragraph (1)
shall remain available until expended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1070, the Great Lakes
Legacy Act of 2002. H.R. 1070 reflects a consensus approach to
addressing sediment contamination in the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes are, without question, a vital resource for both the
United States and Canada. The Great Lakes system provides a waterway to
move goods; water supply for drinking, industrial and agricultural
purposes; a source of hydroelectric power; and swimming and many other
recreational activities.
The industrialization and development of the Great Lakes Basin over
the past 200 years has had an adverse impact on the Great Lakes. As a
result, many of the Great Lakes are under fish advisories warning
people not to eat fish that may be in the water there.
By treaty, the United States and Canada are developing cleanup plans
for the Great Lakes and for specific areas of concern. Unfortunately,
only one area of concern, located in Canada, has been cleaned up. Most
of the activity at U.S. areas of concern has occurred as a result of
Superfund enforcement action or threat of such action.
However, Superfund's suitability for cleaning up the Great Lakes is
limited. The Great Lakes sediments became contaminated as a result of
pollution from many sources over several generations. Applying
Superfund could make virtually every citizen of the Great Lakes Basin a
liable party.
There are better ways to address this problem. One solution is to
encourage cooperative efforts through public-private partnerships. That
is the solution recommended by the bill H.R. 1070, the Great Lakes
Legacy Act of 2002.
H.R. 1070 would authorize $50 million a year for 5 years to clean up
contaminated sediment in areas of concern in the Great Lakes. This
Federal funding must be matched with at least a 35 percent non-Federal
share, encouraging local and private sector investment. This bill also
makes sure that these funds are well spent.
At some sites, removing sediments will be the best way to address
short- and long-term risks. At other sites, the last thing we want to
do is go in and
[[Page H6010]]
stir up contaminated sediments by dredging, causing even more harm to
the environment.
This consensus bill does not try to presume any particular cleanup
option. It simply encourages stakeholders to take action and to make
sure that the action they take will make a real improvement to human
health and the environment.
I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and his
colleagues for working with stakeholders from the Great Lakes to
advance this legislation. I believe this is a great example of
bipartisan legislation that everyone in this Chamber can support. I
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for his splendid
statement and full discussion of the subject at hand and for his
leadership and, as always, bipartisan cooperation in bringing this
legislation to the floor today.
I also want to acknowledge the support and cooperation of our
chairman of the full committee the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young)
and seeing to it that we move this bill expeditiously through
subcommittee, full committee and to the floor today.
There is no question this bill is a long time in coming, and it
should, when enacted and implemented, bring to fruition the long-
planned and sort of haltingly carried out efforts to clean up decades-
long contamination of this repository of one-fifth of all the fresh
water on the face of the Earth, the Great Lakes.
It has been my home all my life, living not on the shore but close
enough to the shore of Lake Superior, my hometown of Chisholm just
about 90 miles away. I spent a great deal of my time as a young lad
near the shores of Lake Superior and my service in the Congress, my
District extends from Duluth all the way up to Canada, along that
splendid rocky outcrop of the 3 billion year old deposits of basalt
that look broodingly out onto Lake Superior, which represents 10
percent of the fresh water on the face of the Earth.
My predecessor Congressman John Blatnik was the original author of
the first Clean Water Act, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956
that began the Nation's efforts to clean up the waters of the United
States and was the one who inspired the research laboratories that now
are located throughout the Great Lakes to serve as a beacon for the
protection, beacon out on those fresh waters to serve as the protection
for the future generations of the Great Lakes, on the purity and
quality of those waters.
In years past, when I chaired the Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight, I held extensive hearings on the United States-Canada Clean
Water Agreement to push administrations in the past to action on
cleanup of the toxic hot spots, or areas of concern as they are called.
It is just an unspeakable tragedy that nearly 100 percent of the near
shore waters of the Great Lakes and connecting tributaries are under
fish consumption advisories because those fish have taken up toxics
from bottom feeding organisms, from plants, carried them in their
bodies and then are consumed by humans. It was presented in documented
testimony in the hearings that I held in the Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight and corroborated since then in subsequent
hearings. The chairman has conducted a few.
If a person lives within 20 miles of the Great Lakes and they eat
fish once a week, they have on average 440 parts per billion PCBs in
their body. If they live anywhere else in America and eat fish once a
week, they probably have only 5 parts per billion per PCBs in their
body. I need not go into the adverse health consequences of PCBs. They
are well-documented in the medical and scientific literature.
We had a researcher, Dr. Waylon Swain, from the University of
Michigan testify at the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
hearing who had done tests on his 16-year-old daughter of the fatty
tissue in her body and the content of PCBs and then did a computer
projection to determine how long it would take for future generations,
for PCBs to leave her offspring if none of them were exposed in the
future to PCBs. Six generations. This is a persistent toxic chemical
that we need to extract from the bottoms of those areas of concern.
Of the 43 areas of concern of the Great Lakes, 31 are wholly or
partly within U.S. waters, and they are mostly harbors. More than 1.3
million in cubic yards of contaminated sediments have been remediated
over the past 3 years. We have just touched the top of the challenge,
and remediation is nowhere near completed in any one of the areas of
concern.
The people of the Great Lakes community, 36 million of them, have
lived with this problem that threatens their physical health, the
health of their children, and impacts the entire region, both
economically and in degradation of the Great Lakes environment.
I was heartened when former President Clinton in fiscal 2000 included
within the administration's budget a request for $50 million for
remediation of contaminated sediments, and I had at the time introduced
H.R. 3670 to authorize a program for cleanup of the Great Lakes areas
of concern, but neither the bill nor the $50 million came to fruition.
But the initiatives then stimulated further attention.
I am very delighted to acknowledge the work of the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who is a colleague of ours on the Committee of
Transportation and Infrastructure, whose scientific mind and
appreciation of the challenges has brought considerable expertise and
passion for cleaning up these waters to this issue, and I compliment
the gentleman for introducing the bill today before us which will
authorize $50 million annually for the Environmental Protection Agency
to carry out projects to address sediment contamination in the Great
Lakes areas of concern.
{time} 1500
These are going to be prioritized projects. Priority will be given to
those that actively address the contaminated sediments that have been
identified in the remedial action plans for the areas of concern,
projects that promise to implement innovative approaches, new
technologies and new techniques to deal with contaminated sediment so
as not to, as Chairman Duncan expressed concern, reintroduce
contaminants into the water column and thereby reestablish the
pollution or distribute it further.
One of these innovative approaches is one that has been undertaken by
the U.S. environmental research laboratory of EPA in Duluth, the
University of Minnesota's Natural Resources Research Institute and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the harbor of Duluth, using mining
technologies which we in the iron ore mining country of my district use
to beneficiate low-grade, nonmagnetic ores using a process that has a
cost in the range of $2 to $3 a cubic yard versus $400 to $600 a cubic
yard for other technologies, have successfully remediated large volumes
of toxic-substance-containing sediment so that this cleansed sediment
now can be used in parks and reclaiming areas along the waterfront in
Duluth for other environmentally friendly activities.
These are the kinds of innovative approaches this legislation will
support and stimulate in the future. The legislation before us also has
clarifying language to ensure that the new program will have no effect
on existing Federal and State authorities to address contaminated
sites. The IJC report recently found that all sediment remediation
completed to date has been funded as a result of enforcement action, or
the threat of enforcement action, against polluters. While that still
would remain, we would hope ideally that there would be a cooperative
approach to cleanup. The aptly named ``orphan sites'' will be one of
the targets of this legislation. I expect EPA and the States to
continue to pursue and to hold accountable polluters responsible for
contamination of all the areas of concern.
Mr. Speaker, again I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Ehlers) for his persistence in pursuing this issue, the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for his diligence in bringing the legislation
forward, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for his participation,
and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for
[[Page H6011]]
his active support on our side as the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the original author of the bill.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Great Lakes Legacy
Act of 2002. First, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan),
the chairman of the subcommittee; and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar), the ranking member of the full committee, for their kind
comments and for the help that they have given me in getting this bill
to this point, particularly not just in terms of process but also in
substance, in the advice I have received.
America is often called the land of plenty, especially when it comes
to our natural resources. Few places on Earth are more blessed than we
are, and the Great Lakes stand out among our many blessings. I am
pleased to be the author of this legislation because it will protect
this precious resource, our Great Lakes.
Let me describe just how important the Great Lakes are, both to
citizens within the Great Lakes basin and to the country as a whole.
The Great Lakes constitute almost 20 percent of the Earth's surface
fresh water and 95 percent of the surface fresh water in the United
States. Let me repeat that: 95 percent of the surface fresh water in
the United States. That means if you take all the waters of the United
States, starting first with the rivers, the Hudson River and working
west, the Ohio, the magnificent Mississippi, the Missouri, Arkansas,
Colorado, Snake and Columbia, and you could name many more, add them
all together and then put in all the other lakes in the United States
and collect all that surface fresh water together in one spot, then you
would still have to multiply that by almost 20 to equal the amount of
water in the Great Lakes system. That is an incredible resource. It is
an incredibly wonderful thing to have.
These lakes provide us with fresh drinking water, habitat for
wildlife, food from fisheries, recreation in and on the waterways,
water for agriculture, and shipping lanes for economic growth. Millions
of people live on the Great Lakes and millions more journey to the
Great Lakes to vacation and enjoy all the splendors the lakes provide.
However, longstanding pollution from contaminated river sediments
continues to harm water quality in the Great Lakes and restricts our
use of this valuable resource. As we heard from the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the fish have become contaminated with the
toxic material, particularly the PCBs. The waterfowl that eat the fish
have in turn become more contaminated. And then, of course, the humans
who eat the fish and occasionally the waterfowl collect it all and
become even more contaminated.
After many years of dumping harmful, toxic substances into the
waterways surrounding the Great Lakes and the lakes themselves, the
pristine environment and waters of the Great Lakes have suffered.
Cleanup projects have been implemented at only a portion of the so-
called areas of concern identified by the EPA as the worst of the
contaminated sites. Let me just explain what these areas of concern
are. That is kind of a euphemistic phrase in my mind. What it is
describing is dirty, toxic, polluted sediments at the bottom of the
rivers. This material is slowly leaching into the Great Lakes.
Years ago we cleaned up our rivers on the surface. We cleaned up the
obvious pollution, the things you could see floating down the river.
Many of us recall the days when the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught
fire and rats ran across the river, it was so contaminated. When I
moved to Grand Rapids, Michigan, the Grand River, which runs right
through the city, was polluted enough that you would not think of
swimming in there; and you did not want to eat the fish in it. We have
made progress in cleaning up the obvious pollution. Today, the Cuyahoga
River is a reasonably clean river. The Grand River in Grand Rapids is
so clean that people fish constantly and eat the fish without
difficulty, and some people even swim in the river now.
However, what we have not addressed is the problem of the sediments,
what is at the bottom of the river. We have not addressed this for
several reasons. First of all, we did not know how to address it,
because if you simply dredge it, you stir up all the sediments and the
contamination just flows down into the lake. So we needed to know more
about how to do it. But also there was a hope that the toxic material
would just stay there in the sediments and not move and we could just
leave it there and ignore it. We have now found out that we cannot
ignore it. It is steadily leaching into the Great Lakes, and we must
stop it and we have to develop methods to do it.
One of the biggest obstacles to completing a remedial action plan, or
a cleanup plan, is the funding for it. Community groups, States, the
EPA, and the Army Corps of Engineers have all committed to remediation
efforts and have cited the lack of Federal funding as an impediment to
cleaning up areas of concern in communities that have taken the
initiative to improve the quality of their water. It is time that we
helped them clean up these sites.
Existing authorities and programs such as Superfund and other
enforcement mechanisms have not provided the resources that are
necessary to clean up contaminated sediments. We must provide the EPA
administrator with authority and with authorized appropriations to
carry out qualified projects in areas of concern that require cleanup
and are not likely to suffer further contamination. We must take steps
to monitor and clean up contaminated sediment and prevent further or
renewed contamination. In addition, we must pursue research and
development of innovative approaches and technology to help us learn
how to remove contaminated sediment in the most environmentally safe
and efficient manner. The Great Lakes Legacy Act helps accomplish these
goals.
Finally, this act is not only environmentally responsible; it is also
fiscally responsible. The act provides leveraged funding and fosters
partnerships between State and local authorities and private interests
by requiring a 35 percent non-Federal cost share. In addition, non-
Federal sponsors are prevented from using Federal funds to displace
previous expenditures for remediation programs. In other words, with a
65-35 split, we will get a greater environmental bang for our Federal
buck.
The Great Lakes Legacy Act will greatly improve cleanup efforts in
the Great Lakes communities which need it most and will allow
unfettered, continued use of this precious natural resource. I thank
the chairman and the ranking member for their assistance. I appreciate
their support of this bill.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers on our side,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me just close the debate by saying there is almost nothing that
people take for granted as much as they do their water. Yet many people
have said and have written that water may well be the oil of the 21st
century. The importance of our water supply is going to grow and grow
and grow with the passing years. Certainly the Great Lakes, as the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) just said, is a precious national
resource. The Great Lakes contain, as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) has said, almost one-fifth of the world's fresh-water supply.
The Great Lakes contain 95 percent of the U.S. surface fresh-water
supply. The Great Lakes is a very, very important asset.
This is a good bill. This is a very pro-environment bill. The lack of
controversy should not mask or decrease or cover up the significance of
this bill, the importance of it. I think this is one of the most
significant clean-water bills that this Congress has ever passed. I
urge all of my colleagues to support it.
Let me say one other thing before I yield back my time. I just want
to commend the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). The gentleman from Minnesota is
certainly always one of the most active members of our committee and a
real leader on all of these issues, and I
[[Page H6012]]
thank him for his support of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I thank the gentleman not only for his kind remarks but also for his
very thoughtful summation. In his ever-judicious manner, he has summed
up the issue before us and stated the case so well. I not only urge
unanimous approval of the legislation in this body, but I also urge the
other body to move expeditiously on this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The Chair would remind all
Members that they should refrain from urging the Senate to take a
specific action.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Great Lakes
Legacy Act, H.R. 1070.
I would like to commend my colleague and friend from Michigan,
Congressman Vern Ehlers for crafting this important legislation and for
his diligence in gathering the appropriate support. As a cosponsor of
the Great Lakes Legacy Act, I am extremely pleased that the Great Lakes
region is one step closer to cleaning up toxic hot spots that lurk
under the world's largest freshwater system.
While globally there are 42 Areas of Concern (AOC), that is, areas
that suffer from severe sediment contamination, 26 are located in the
United States, and in my state of Michigan there are 14 designated
AOCs. Contamination levels in these areas threaten human health,
contribute to the loss of fish and wildlife habitat, restrict critical
dredging activities, and lead to numerous beach closings. AOCs are
among Michigan's most demanding environmental challenge.
Like other environmental clean-up programs, full remediation of Great
Lakes AOCs continues to be bogged down by a burdensome web of complex
regulations, lack of necessary funding, and insufficient progress of
research and development into new technologies. Recognizing these
obstacles, the legislation we are considering today aims to solve the
problems that plague successful clean-up efforts.
In short, H.R. 1070 addresses the most costly and technical hurdles
that face these hazardous hot spots. More specifically, this
legislation authorizes funding for States, Indian tribes, regional
agencies, and local governments for projects in AOCs to monitor or
evaluate contaminated sediment and remediate contaminated sediments. It
also targets funding for research and development of new technologies
that aim to clean toxic sediments in the Great Lakes basin.
My support for this legislation goes beyond my co-sponsorship of the
measure. In March I introduced a resolution, House Resolution 361.
H.Res. 361 calls on the House of Representatives to take swift action
in helping to restore and protect Michigan's Great Lakes, the state's
most precious natural resource. My bill highlights the environmental
problems associated with AOCs and includes the goals set forth in the
Great Lakes Legacy Act. In my view, the work done by my colleague from
Michigan on this subject it too important for the Congress to let slip.
My resolution affirms the importance of passing H.R. 1070 in an
expeditious manner equal to its relevance for helping clean the world's
largest source of freshwater.
Let me make this point clear, the environmental problems that are
caused by AOCs are not just a Michigan issue. Although most Areas of
Concern in the United States are concentrated in Michigan, it is a
national and international problem. Its risks for human health, aquatic
populations, ecological habitats and wildlife are serious and impact
states beyond Michigan. Therefore, it would be unwise for the Congress
to ignore this issue or delay its consideration any further.
Mr. Speaker, again, I am pleased to lend my full support for the
Great Lakes Legacy Act and urge my colleagues to do the same. With that
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the floor.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 1070, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to amend
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out projects and
conduct research for remediation of sediment contamination in areas of
concern in the Great Lakes, and for other purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________