[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.

                          ____________________