[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 145 (Tuesday, November 12, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H8079-H8083]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GREAT LAKES AND LAKE CHAMPLAIN ACT OF 2002
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in
the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 1070) 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.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendments:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Great
Lakes and Lake Champlain Act of 2002''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--GREAT LAKES
Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Report on remedial action plans.
Sec. 103. Remediation of sediment contamination in areas of concern in
the Great Lakes.
Sec. 104. Relationship to Federal and State authorities.
Sec. 105. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 106. Research and development program.
TITLE II--LAKE CHAMPLAIN
Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Lake Champlain Basin Program.
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 301. Phase II storm water program.
Sec. 302. Preservation of reporting requirements.
Sec. 303. Repeal.
Sec. 304. Cross Harbor Freight Movement Project EIS, New York City.
Sec. 305. Center for Brownfields Excellence.
Sec. 306. Louisiana Highway 1026 Project, Louisiana.
TITLE I--GREAT LAKES
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Great Lakes Legacy Act
of 2002''.
SEC. 102. REPORT ON REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS.
Section 118(c)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(3)) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(E) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this subparagraph, the Administrator shall
submit to Congress a report on such actions, time periods,
and resources as are necessary to fulfill the duties of the
Agency relating to oversight of Remedial Action Plans
under--
``(i) this paragraph; and
``(ii) the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.''.
SEC. 103. 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 Program Office, may carry
out projects that meet the requirements of subparagraph (B).
``(B) Eligible projects.--A project meets the requirements
of this subparagraph if the project is to be carried out in
an area of concern located wholly or partially in the United
States and the project--
``(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)(I) has been identified in a Remedial Action Plan
submitted under paragraph (3); and
``(II) is ready to be implemented;
``(iii) will use an innovative approach, technology, or
technique that may provide greater environmental benefits, or
equivalent environmental benefits at a reduced cost; or
``(iv) includes remediation to be commenced not later than
1 year after the date of receipt of funds for the project.
``(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 share.--
``(i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of a
project carried out under this paragraph shall be at least 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.
``(iii) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the
cost of a project carried out under this paragraph--
``(I) may include monies paid pursuant to, or the value of
any in-kind service performed under, and administrative order
on consent or judicial consent decree; but
``(II) may not include any funds paid pursuant to, or the
value of any in-kind service performed under, a unilateral
administrative order or court order.
``(iv) 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 the 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 practicable.
``(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
2004 through 2008.
``(ii) Availability.--Funds made available under clause (i)
shall remain available until expended.
``(13) Public information program.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator, acting through the
Program Office and in coordination with States, Indian
tribes, local governments, and other entities, may carry out
a public information program to provide information relating
to the remediation of contaminated sediment to the public in
areas of concern that are located wholly or partially in the
United States.
``(B) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this paragraph $1,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.''.
SEC. 104. RELATIONSHIP TO FEDERAL AND STATE AUTHORITIES.
Section 118(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1268(g)) 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'';
and
(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.''.
SEC. 105. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 118(h) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1268(h)) is amended--
(1) by striking the second sentence; and
(2) in the first sentence--
(A) by striking ``not to exceed $11,000,000'' and inserting
``not to exceed--
``(1) $11,000,000'';
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting a
semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years
1992 through 2003; and
``(3) $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through
2008.''.
SEC. 106. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--In coordination with other Federal, State,
and local officials, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency may conduct research on the development and
use of innovative approaches, technologies, and
[[Page H8080]]
techniques for the remediation of sediment contamination in
areas of concern that are located wholly or partially in the
United States.
(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 $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004
through 2008.
(2) Availability.--Funds appropriated under paragraph (1)
shall remain available until expended.
TITLE II--LAKE CHAMPLAIN
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Lake Champlain Basin Program Act of 2002''.
SEC. 202. LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN PROGRAM.
Section 120 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1270) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and all that follows
through ``There is established'' in subsection (a) and
inserting the following:
``SEC. 120. LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN PROGRAM.
``(a) Establishment.--
``(1) In General.--There is established'';
(2) in subsection (a) (as amended by paragraph (1)), by
adding at the end the following:
``(2) Implementation.--The Administrator--
``(A) may provide support to the State of Vermont, the
State of New York, and the New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission for the implementation of the
Lake Champlain Basin Program; and
``(B) shall coordinate actions of the Environmental
Protection Agency under subparagraph (A) with the actions of
other appropriate Federal agencies.'';
(3) in subsection (d), by striking ``(1)'';
(4) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(hereafter in this
section referred to as the `Plan')''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) be reviewed and revised, as necessary, at least once
every 5 years, in consultation with the Administrator and
other appropriate Federal agencies.'';
(5) in subsection (f)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the Management
Conference,'' and inserting ``participants in the Lake
Champlain Basin Program,''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``development of the
Plan'' and all that follows and inserting ``development and
implementation of the Plan.'';
(6) in subsection (g)--
(A) by striking ``(g)'' and all that follows through ``the
term'' and inserting the following:
``(g) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Lake champlain basin program.--The term `Lake
Champlain Basin Program' means the coordinated efforts among
the Federal Government, State governments, and local
governments to implement the Plan.
``(2) Lake champlain drainage basin.--The term'';
(B) in paragraph (2) (as designated by subparagraph (A))--
(i) by inserting ``Hamilton,'' after ``Franklin,''; and
(ii) by inserting ``Bennington,'' after ``Rutland,''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Plan.--The term `Plan' means the plan developed under
subsection (e).'';
(7) by striking subsection (h) and inserting the following:
``(h) No Effect on Certain Authority.--Nothing in this
section--
``(1) affects the jurisdiction or powers of--
``(A) any department or agency of the Federal Government or
any State government; or
``(B) any international organization or entity related to
Lake Champlain created by treaty or memorandum to which the
United States is a signatory;
``(2) provides new regulatory authority for the
Environmental Protection Agency; or
``(3) affects section 304 of the Great Lakes Critical
Programs Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-596; 33 U.S.C. 1270
note).''; and
(8) in subsection (i)--
(A) by striking ``section $2,000,000'' and inserting
``section--
``(1) $2,000,000'';
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting a
semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years
1996 through 2003; and
``(3) $11,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through
2008.''.
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 301. PHASE II STORM WATER PROGRAM.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for fiscal year
2003, funds made available to a State to carry out nonpoint
source management programs under section 319 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1329) may, at the
option of the State, be used to carry out projects and
activities in the State relating to the development or
implementation of phase II of the storm water program of the
Environmental Protection Agency established by the rule
entitled ``National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System--
Regulations for Revision of the Water Pollution Control
Program Addressing Storm Water Discharges'', promulgated by
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on
December 8, 1999 (64 Fed. Reg. 68722).
SECTION 302. PRESERVATION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 3003(a)(1) of the Federal Reports
Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (31 U.S.C. 1113 note;
Public Law 104-66) does not apply to any report required to
be submitted under any of the following provisions of law:
(1) Effects of pollution on estuaries of the united
states.--Section 104(n)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1254(n)(3)).
(2) Implementation of great lakes water quality agreement
of 1978.--Section 118(c)(10) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(10)).
(3) Comprehensive conservation and management plan for long
island sound.--Section 119(c)(7) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1269(c)(7)).
(4) Level b plan on all river basins.--Section 209(b) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1289(b)).
(5) State reports on water quality of all navigable
waters.--Section 305(b) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1315(b)).
(6) Exemptions from water pollution control requirements
for executive agencies.--Section 313(a) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1323(a)).
(7) Status of water quality in united states lakes.--
Section 314(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1324(a)).
(8) National estuary program activities.--Section 320(j)(2)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1330(j)(2)).
(9) Reports on contracts entered into relating to
procurement from violators of water quality standards.--
Section 508(e) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1368(e)).
(10) National requirements and costs of water pollution
control.--Section 516 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1375).
(b) Other Reports.--
(1) In general.--Effective November 10, 1998, section 501
of the Federal Reports Elimination Act of 1998 (Public Law
105-362; 112 Stat. 3283) is amended by striking subsections
(a), (b), (c), and (d).
(2) Applicability.--The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1254(n)(3)) shall be applied and administered on
and after the date of enactment of this Act as if the
amendments made by subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) of
section 501 of the Federal Reports Elimination Act of 1998
(Public Law 105-362; 112 Stat. 3283) had not enacted.
SEC. 303. REPEAL.
Title VII of Public Law 105-78 (20 U.S.C. 50 note; 111
Stat. 1524) (other than section 702) is repealed.
SEC. 304. CROSS HARBOR FREIGHT MOVEMENT PROJECT EIS, NEW YORK
CITY.
Seciton 1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (112 Stat. 305) is amended in item number 1320 of the
table by striking ``Reconstruct 79th Street Traffic Circle,
New York City'' and inserting ``Cross Harbor Freight Movement
Project EIS, New York City''.
SEC. 305. CENTER FOR BROWNFIELDS EXCELLENCE.
``(a) In General.--To demonstrate the transfer of
technology and expertise from the Federal Government to the
private sector, and to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
reuse by the private sector of properties and assets that the
Federal Government has determined, through applicable
statutes and processes, that it no longer needs, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall
make a grant to not less than one eligible sponsor to
establish and operate a center for Brownfields Excellence.
``(b) Responsibilities of Center.--The responsibilities of
a center established under this section shall include the
transfer of technology and expertise in the redevelopment of
abandoned or underutilized property that may have
environmental contamination and the dissemination of
information regarding successful models for such
redevelopment.
``(c) Priority.--In carrying out this section, the
Administrator shall give priority consideration to a grant
application submitted by an eligible sponsor that meets the
following criteria:
(1) Demonstrated ability to facilitate the return of
property that may have environmental contamination to
productive use.
(2) Demonstrated ability to facilitate public-private
partnerships and regional cooperation.
(3) Capability to provide leadership in making both
national and regional contributions to addressing the problem
of underutilized or abandoned properties.
(4) Demonstrated ability to work with Federal departments
and agencies to facilitate reuse by the private sector of
properties and assets no longer needed by the Federal
Government.
``(d) Eligible Sponsor Defined.--In this section, the term
``eligible sponsor'' means a regional nonprofit community
redevelopment organization assisting an area that--
(1) has jobs due to the closure of a private sector of
Federal installation; and
(2) as a result, has an underemployed workforce and
underutilized or abandoned properties.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000.
SEC. 306. LOUISIANA HIGHWAY 1026 PROJECT, LOUISIANA.
Section 1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (112 Stat. 272) is amended in item number 426 of the
table by striking ``Louisiana Highway 16'' and inserting the
following: ``Louisiana Highway 1026''.]
Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act to amend the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to
provide assistance for remediation of sediment contamination
in areas of concern, to authorize
[[Page H8081]]
assistance for research and development of innovative
technologies for such remediation, and to amend the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act and the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 to modify provisions relating to the
Lake Champlain basin, and for other purposes.''.
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 such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge all Members to concur in the Senate
amendment to H.R. 1070, the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002. On
September 4 of this year, the House passed H.R. 1070 by voice vote. On
October 17, the Senate passed this bill, with an amendment, by
unanimous consent.
Title I of the Senate amendment is the House-passed version of the
Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 with a few minor and technical changes.
Industrialization over the past 200 years has contaminated sediments in
the Great Lakes. This sediment contamination can limit some uses of the
lakes, particularly fishing, when contaminants get into the food chain.
As a result, many of the Great Lakes are under advisories warning
people not to eat the fish that they catch. Unfortunately, 200 years of
contamination is difficult to reverse and sediment cleanups can be very
controversial. Little progress has thus been made.
The Great Lakes Legacy Act will help overcome the obstacles to
cleanup by encouraging voluntary, consensus-based cleanup actions that
will be carried out by the EPA in partnership with non-Federal
sponsors. The Great Lakes Legacy Act also will help reduce the
controversy surrounding sediment cleanups by ensuring that any cleanup
actions funded by this legislation will truly benefit human health and
the environment. As noted in the report of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure accompanying H.R. 1070, projects
should be selected in accordance with a risk management strategy. In
addition, the legislation requires the EPA to make sure that the short-
and long-term effects of remedial alternatives have been evaluated
before selecting a cleanup project. This requirement will help give the
public confidence that a cleanup action will not cause more harm than
good. For example, if a cleanup alternative involves dredging, we can
be confident that the EPA has considered whether dredging at that site
will stir up contaminants, causing more harm than good to human health
and the environment.
I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and his
colleagues for working with various stakeholders from the Great Lakes.
They have reached a great compromise on this that has kept everyone
happy and thus has been able to advance this consensus approach to
Great Lakes remediation.
Title II of the Senate amendment authorizes assistance to State and
local governments to improve the quality of Lake Champlain. Lack
Champlain is not one of the Great Lakes and is not eligible for
assistance under title I of H.R. 1070. Current law authorizes the EPA
to help State and local governments develop a plan for the restoration
of Lake Champlain. Title II of H.R. 1070 expands this existing
authority to allow the EPA to also provide assistance to implement
projects recommended under the plan.
{time} 1500
Nothing in this title provides any assistance for the regulatory
activities of any agency or provides any new regulatory authority for
the EPA. We expect the Lake Champlain Basin Program to be a model of
community-based environmental restoration, giving local governments and
other local entities the maximum input into the projects and activities
that are carried out with assistance provided under this legislation.
Finally, title III of the Senate amendment includes miscellaneous
provisions, including language that will reinstate several important
Clean Water Act reports that help Congress oversee this program.
This is very important legislation, affecting one of the greatest and
largest bodies of freshwater in this world, and I urge all Members to
support the Senate amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of H.R. 1070, the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain
Act of 2002, and I acknowledge with great gratitude the splendid
leadership of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the
subcommittee chairman, who is always judicious, thoughtful,
considerate, supportive, has a grasp of the issues, and proceeds with
great confidence and vigor in pursuing the committee's work. I also
want to acknowledge the splendid and persistent initiative of the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who always brings his scientific
bent to the work of the committee and particularly the work of the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, and for whose great
commitment to cleaning up the waters of the Great Lakes and keeping
them clean I have sincere admiration and appreciation.
As the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) already indicated, we
have worked out relatively minor differences that existed between the
House version and the version of the other body, and our approval today
clears the bill for the President.
I grew up in the watershed of the Great Lakes, not along the shores
of Lake Superior but along the waters that drain into Lake Superior,
and much of my service in the Congress has been concerned with both my
work as a staff director for my predecessor and staff director of the
then Committee on Public Works and Transportation, and as a member, I
have made protecting this extraordinary resource of freshwater one of
my very top priorities and commitments.
We have to remember that the Great Lakes, all five of them, represent
one-fifth of all the available freshwater on the face of the Earth. We
do not count the frozen freshwater at the poles. And the magnitude of
Lake Superior is such that the bottom 125 feet of Lake Superior are 125
feet below sea level. That is an immense body of water. It turns over
once in 500 years. Whatever we put into that lake is going to be there
for a long time. We have to be careful, extremely careful, not only
about what directly goes into Lake Superior because it then goes into
all the other lakes but Lake Michigan, because the effect will be so
persistent and so long lasting.
We also have to be careful about what comes in from the air. Air
depositions into Lake Superior come from as far away as Central
America. DDT can be found on the shores of Lake Superior and other
Great Lakes carried by the upper atmospheric winds, as can Toxaphene,
which is used as an agent to suppress the boll weevils in cotton
country, and that atmospheric deposition has been found in a lake on
Isle Royale above the level of the waters of Lake Superior.
I mentioned these because the persistent toxic substances that are
found in the Great Lakes, both in the bottom sediments, in the plants,
taken up by the benthic organisms, eaten by the fish, then consumed by
people, those toxic substances move up the food chain, and it is simply
a tragedy that 100 percent of the near shore waters of the Great Lakes
and their connecting tributaries are under fish consumption advisories
for PCBs, dioxins, mercury. Studies continue to show, as they did years
ago when I chaired the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight and
held hearings on the U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
and the Great Lakes Water Quality Act, that if one lives anywhere in
America, one probably has five parts per billion PCBs in their body,
but if one lives within 20 miles of one of the Great Lakes and eat fish
once a week, they most likely have 440 parts per billion PCBs in their
body. That is 20 times the average outside of the Great Lakes.
Dr. Waylon Swain, researcher at the University of Michigan, the home
State of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), testified at
hearings that I held reporting on tests he conducted on his 16-year-old
daughter. He analyzed her fatty tissue, calculated the level of PCBs,
and then did a computer projection on her progeny to determine how long
it would take just for natural processes without further introduction
of PCBs into the food chain of that daughter and her offspring. It
would
[[Page H8082]]
take six generations for the PCBs to disappear from the bloodline. That
is such a sobering thought that as we go about taking action on this
legislation, this should not be considered just another bill that we
pass. This is legislation we are passing that fully applied, vigorously
enforced, vigorously carried out, will vastly improve quality of life
for future generations.
Twenty years ago we, the U.S. and Canada, identified 43 areas of
concern in the Great Lakes. Thirty-one of those are wholly or mostly in
U.S. waters. And even though we have removed 1,300,000 cubic yards of
bottom sediment, mostly from the harbors, those are mostly harbors, and
have remediated that sedimentation, the challenge is still there. The
challenge is huge. We have not resolved the problem yet. And there are
36 million people living along the waters of the Great Lakes and in the
watershed; therefore, far more responsibility on us to be more careful
with these waters and with the bottom sediments.
I was very encouraged when then President Clinton included in his
budget request $50 million for remediation of contaminated sediments,
and I introduced legislation to authorize a program to vigorously
advance the remediation. Unfortunately the 50 million did not get
appropriated, the bill did not pass. What we have today is an advanced
version of that legislation for which again I am very appreciative of
the gentlemen from Michigan and of Tennessee. We do in this legislation
provide that $50 million annual authorization for EPA to carry out
projects to address sediment contamination. Priority will go to
projects that actively address contaminated sediments that have been
identified in the remedial action plans for those areas of concern and
for innovative approaches, technologies, and techniques for dealing
with contaminated sediments. I have been very keenly interested in one
that has been used on the bottom sediments in the Duluth harbor using
mining technique in nonmagnetic ore beneficiation. A process is used
called media flotation where the nonferrous material settles out and
the lesser material is carried off, they can do this work for on the
order of a dollar to $2 a cubic yard. Early prices on remediation of
bottom sediments in the Great Lakes centered around $400 to $600 a
cubic yard. I thought if we could bring mining and environmental
technology together, we could make an advance and in fact did. It is
not the dollar or $2 a cubic yard but $30 or $40 which is still a
factor of 10 less than early estimates. We have now succeeded in
cleaning up large volumes of toxic substance-containing sediment, and
this cleaned material is now being used for parkland and for beach
nourishment and is being used in reclaiming areas along the waterfront
in Duluth for other activities that are in fact environmentally
friendly.
I expect this project to continue with great success as more is
learned about the mechanics of separating toxic substances out from
bottom sediments, and I have no doubt that the legislation before us
will move vigorously in the direction that we appointed with this bill
and that EPA should have no reticence whatever in moving ahead so long
as we provide the appropriation to follow up on the funding authority.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I had the privilege of chairing the Subcommittee on Aviation for 6
years under the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and now the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment for 2 years under the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). Both have been great, great leaders
for our committee, really outstanding chairmen, and we have many
wonderful members. But I always am so very impressed, in fact at times
even amazed at the knowledge that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) our ranking member, has on the issues that come before our
committee, and I think there are very few Members in this body who are
more dedicated to the work that comes out of a committee than the
gentleman is to the work that comes out of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and I just wanted to express once
again, as I have before, my very deep appreciation and respect and
admiration for him, and he has shown that once again on this bill. And
I do agree with him. He is correct in saying this is not just another
bill. The lack of controversy about this bill should not be any
indication of its importance. As I mentioned a moment ago and as the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) mentioned, it has almost one-
fifth of the surface freshwater in the world in the Great Lakes and I
think 95 percent of the U.S. surface freshwater. But this bill would
not be before us today if it were not for the great and dedicated work
of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Duncan) for yielding me this time. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Oberstar) for his very generous comments and his erudite display
of knowledge.
I agree with the gentleman from Tennessee's (Mr. Duncan) comments
about the gentleman from Minnesota's (Mr. Oberstar) interest and his
vast scope of knowledge. I would like to think that is a trait of
people from Minnesota since I was born in Minnesota myself.
{time} 1515
The gentleman from Tennessee has done an outstanding job of chairing
the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, and we have gotten
some very good legislation out this year, not just this bill, but other
bills relating to this, and I hope they all pass as this bill is doing.
Also I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the
chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for his
support, and the excellent staff of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, who have worked very hard, even sometimes late
evenings, to get this legislation through the House, over to the
Senate, and now back before the House for final consideration.
America is often called the land of plenty, especially when it comes
to our natural resources. Few places are blessed more than we are, and
the Great Lakes stand out among our many blessings. These lakes provide
us with fresh drinking water, habitat for wildlife, food for 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. Put simply, they are the heart and
soul of Michigan.
I would also add to the statistic the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) gave that one-fifth of all the fresh water in the world is
contained in the Great Lakes. Even beyond that, the Great Lakes alone
contain 20 times more fresh water than all the other lakes and rivers
in the United States combined; twenty times more than all the others.
That is an immense amount of fresh water.
The legislation before us today is a marriage of two different bills,
both of which represent a great step forward in protecting and
restoring our environment in the Great Lakes Basin. Title I of the
legislation is the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002, which I introduced
in March 2001. The Senate accepted almost all of the legislation that
passed the House on September 5, 2002. This title provides $50 million
a year in grants to clean up contaminated sediments at ``Areas of
Concern'' within the Great Lakes. These areas represent a legacy of
pollution within the Great Lakes Basin, and it is high time that we
clean them up or, in the words of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar), prevent any further contamination of future generations.
In addition, the legislation will foster technology research
development by providing the Environmental Protection Agency's Office
of Research and Development $2 million a year. With this funding, we
can find better, faster, cheaper ways to clean up these toxic hot
spots.
In carrying out this program, the Great Lakes National Program
Office, which is ultimately responsible for making these grants, should
coordinate with the Office of Research and Development to ensure that
grants are focused on technologies that will, in fact, improve the way
we clean up these sites.
[[Page H8083]]
We also accepted some changes the Senate made to the Legacy Act that
passed by the House. We have added a new public information program
which is funded at $1 million a year. This will ensure that the public
is informed about the progress, or lack of, in cleaning up areas of
concern.
Lastly, we have added a provision that requires the Environmental
Protection Agency to report back to Congress on what the Agency needs
in order to oversee and implement the remedial action plans for Areas
of Concern and other plans mandated by the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. These plans represent the steps that must be taken in order
to restore the water quality of a polluted site.
Recently, the GAO reported that the EPA has not done an adequate job
of overseeing the implementation of these plans by State and local
entities. GAO pointed out that this lack of oversight has led to
confusion and delays in getting cleanup actions underway.
Title II of the legislation was added by the Senate in order to
continue and expand a program for Lake Champlain that was established
under the Clean Water Act. Current law authorizes the EPA to help State
and local governments develop a plan for the restoration of Lake
Champlain. Title II expands this authority to allow EPA to also provide
assistance to implement projects recommended under the plan. The
ultimate goal of this plan, like the Legacy Act, is to improve water
quality in the Great Lakes Basin.
We as a country have spent many years cleaning up our rivers and
lakes on the surface, and we have made very significant progress. Now
it is time to turn our attention to the bottoms of rivers and lakes and
clean up the toxic sediments that are steadily leaching into the Great
Lakes. The Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act will give this problem
the attention it deserves.
I thank the chairman, his staff and the ranking member for their
assistance. I also thank groups that helped on this legislation, the
Lake Michigan Federation, the Sierra Club and the Council of Great
Lakes Industries. I also want to thank Susan Bodine, currently on the
staff, who spent endless hours working with us on this issue over the
past few years. Also I want to thank Ben Grumbles, who as a committee
staffer worked on this legislation. Currently he is at the EPA working
in their Office of Water. I am sure he will take great pleasure in
implementing this bill.
I appreciate the support of all these individuals, and I urge all of
my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, again I express my appreciation to the gentleman from
Tennessee for his kind, thoughtful remarks, and to the gentleman from
Michigan for his thoughtful comments as well, and to say that this is
the finest example of how legislation ought to be done, where two
parties get together and put aside partisanship and do things that are
good for the country. We have a great tradition of doing so in our
committee, and I look forward to continuing that tradition in the
balance of this session and in the coming Congress.
I reexpress my appreciation to the chairman of the full committee,
the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young). Probably he is happy to see
this bill passed so we stop badgering him about getting it to the floor
and getting it moving.
I do want to join in observing that the additions made by the other
body dealing with Lake Champlain and its cleanup are very important and
very useful, but it should be emphasized that Lake Champlain is a good
lake, it is not a Great Lake, with all respect to our colleagues in the
other body who at one time tried to make it one of the Great Lakes by
legislation. Now, that is kind of a reverse on the marriage injunction,
that what God has joined together, let no man put asunder. Let no man
create what God has not done. In this respect, we are happy to help out
with Lake Champlain, and it is important, more important historically,
I think, than geologically.
But this is good legislation. Let us now all resolve to work together
to make sure we get the appropriations to carry out this legislation.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that today we
will send H.R. 1070, the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002, to President
Bush to be enacted into law.
The Great Lakes are a vital resources for both the United States and
Canada, but have been adversely impacted by over 200 years of
development and industrialization.
This is not a situation that can be addressed by pointing fingers and
suing people under the Superfund law or other liability statutes.
The solution provided by the Great Lakes Legacy Act is to address
sediment contamination through cooperative efforts and public-private
partnerships.
Cleanup activities funded by this bill can be carried out as separate
projects or in conjunction with other efforts to clean up sediments--
including efforts being carried out under consent decrees or consent
orders authorized by other environmental laws and efforts of the Army
Corps of Engineers.
This approach is supported by both industrial and environmental
groups in the Great Lakes Basin.
The Senate amendments that is before the House today consists of the
House text of H.R. 1070, as title I. Accordingly, the report of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee provides the relevant
legislative history for this title.
The Senate amendment also includes, as title II, a limited
authorization to EPA to support activities proposed by State and local
governments to help restore Lake Champlain.
Finally, the Senate amendment includes, as title III, some
miscellaneous items, including the restoration of various Clean Water
Act reports to help my Committee's oversight of Clean Water Act
programs.
I urge all members to support the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1070.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) that the
House suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to H.R.
1070.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate amendment was
concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________