[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 103 (Monday, July 14, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9330-S9332]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Voinovich, Ms. 
        Stabenow, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. 
        Schumer):
  S. 1398. A bill to provide for the environmental restoration of the 
Great Lakes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Great Lakes 
Environmental Restoration Act'' with Senator DeWine and our other bill 
sponsors. I also want to thank Representatives Emanuel and Reynolds and 
the rest of the House members who are introducing similar Great Lakes 
restoration legislation over in the House today.
  Many of my colleagues are aware of the importance of the Great Lakes 
to the eight States which border them. The lakes provide our drinking 
water, they provide our largest recreational resource, they are 
tremendously important to our economy, and they impact our quality of 
life. Over time, we have seen numerous changes in the lakes from water 
levels to fish populations to water quality. Some of these changes are 
part of a natural cycle, but many of these changes are the direct 
result of management policies. For example, the Great Lakes Fishery 
Commission and its partners have been able to reduce sea lamprey 
populations by 90 percent. The lake sturgeon appear to be improving as 
a result of the efforts by Federal and State managers, fishermen, and 
other water users. As of April 2002, approximately 84 percent of high-
level PCB wastes had been destroyed, up from approximately 40 percent 
in spring 1998. And the first U.S. Area of Concern--Presque Isle Bay, 
PA--has been upgraded to a ``recovery area.'' While the Great Lakes 
have made strides in recovering after the environmental protections 
were put in place in the early 70s, there has been very slow progress 
in the last 10-15 years because the Federal commitment has not kept up 
with the needs of the Great Lakes.
  This legislation that we are introducing today will provide the 
Federal commitment of funding and resources to keep pace with the 
restoration needs of the Great Lakes.
  The Great Lakes face problems like beach closings, contaminated 
sediments, and invasive species, and the Federal Government needs to 
``jump start'' our restoration efforts in the Great Lakes. I believe 
that with the help of the governors, the mayors, the wide array of 
nongovernmental organizations, and other interested parties, this 
legislation would provide some of the resources needed to keep pace 
with needs of the lakes.

  In April, the GAO completed its study on Great Lakes Restoration 
efforts, and they reported that while there were many on-going 
restoration efforts from dozens of Federal and State Great Lakes 
programs, there was no over-arching, coordinated plan for the Great 
Lakes. GAO also reported that an environmental indicators and 
monitoring system needed to be developed in order to measure overall 
restoration progress. The report emphasizes that limited Great Lakes 
funding has always been a problem.
  The legislation we are introducing today has three components to 
address the problems outlined by the April 2003 GAO report. First, the 
legislation authorizes $600 million in annual funding for the EPA's 
Great Lakes National Program Office to provide grants to the Great 
Lakes States, municipalities and other applicants based on the 
recommendations and priorities of a Great Lakes Environmental 
Restoration Advisory Board. These grants will require a 20 percent 
funding commitment from the region, and every State will receive at 
least 6 percent of the total amount of funding available for the year. 
The Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Advisory Board will be led by 
the Great Lakes governors, but it will include views of a whole range 
of people interested in the Great Lakes such as mayors, Federal 
agencies, Native American tribes, environmentalists, industry 
representatives, and Canadian observers. This Advisory Board will 
provide priorities on restoration issues such as invasive species 
control and prevention, wetlands restoration, contaminated sediments 
cleanup, and water quality improvements. By providing grant priorities, 
the region will shape the future of the Great Lakes.
  Second, this legislation establishes a Great Lakes Federal 
Coordinating Council in order to coordinate Federal activities in the 
Great Lakes. According to the GAO study, environmental restoration 
activities in the Great Lakes are uncoordinated. EPAs Great Lakes 
National Program Office is equipped to serve as the Council leader, and 
Federal participants include NOAA, the Army Corps of Engineers, the 
Department of State, the Department of Health and Human Services, the 
Department of Agriculture and the Department of Interior. The Council 
would meet at least three times per year to ensure that the efforts of 
Federal agencies concerning environmental restoration and protection of 
the Great Lakes are coordinated, effective, complementary, and cost-
efficient. The Council would also provide a list of its funding 
priorities to the Office of Management and Budget.
  Third, this bill gives the Great Lakes National Program Office the 
mandate to work with other Federal agencies and Canada to identify and 
measure water quality and other environmental factors on a regular 
basis. The initial set of data collected through this network will 
serve as a benchmark against which to measure future improvements. 
Those measurements will help us make decisions on how to steer future 
restoration efforts. With a clearer picture of how the Great Lakes are 
changing, we can change course when needed and spend public funds on 
the most pressing demands. This provision will address GAO's finding 
that there is no data collected regularly throughout the Great Lakes, 
and that the existing data are inadequate to determine whether water 
quality and other environmental conditions are improving.
  The Great Lakes are a unique and valuable resource, and we cannot 
afford to continuously underfund their protection. Congress must act to 
enhance their restoration and protection. As the current caretakers and 
beneficiaries, we owe nothing less to the region and the American 
people.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am proud to join my fellow Great Lakes 
Task Force chair, Senator Carl Levin,

[[Page S9331]]

in introducing today the Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Act. I 
would like to thank our Senate cosponsors--Senators Voinovich, 
Stabenow, Coleman, Durbin, Schumer, and Clinton--for supporting this 
legislative effort.
  The Great Lakes hold one-fifth of the world's surface freshwater, 
hold an estimated six quadrillion gallons of water, cover more than 
94,000 square miles, and drain more than twice as much land. The Great 
Lakes ecosystem includes such diverse elements as northern evergreen 
forests, deciduous forests, lake plain prairies, and coastal wetlands. 
Over thirty of the basin's biological communities--and over 100 
species--are globally rare or found only in the Great Lakes Basin. The 
637 State parks in the region accommodate more than 250 million 
visitors each year. And, the Great Lakes Basin is home to more than 33 
million people--that is one-tenth of our entire U.S. population.
  The eight Great Lakes States comprise more than one-third of the 
national manufacturing output, and the lakes represent a critical 
shipping land for these States' manufactured goods and other natural 
resources. Ohio's nine ports on Lake Erie annually handle 70 million 
tons of cargo--that is almost seven tons of cargo for every Ohio 
resident, with a total value of over $1.5 billion.
  My colleagues in Congress and I understand the value of the Great 
Lakes as a natural resource to the region, and we have been making 
progress in improving the overall quality of the lakes. Over the last 
few years, I have worked to secure $34 million for Ohio and the Great 
Lakes States to expand public access to the lakes. And now, I am 
working to address invasive species through the National Invasive 
Species Council Act, which I introduced, and the National Aquatic 
Invasive Species Act, which I cosponsored. Senator Levin and I have 
worked together as cochairs of the Great Lakes Task Force since 2000.
  We have fought to secure needed Great Lakes funding for the NOAA 
water level gauges, the replacement ice-breaking vessel, the Mackinaw, 
and sea lamprey control money for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. 
We both met with the U.S. Trade Representative in an effort to prevent 
water from the Great Lakes from being diverted abroad. And, we also 
worked together to authorize the Great Lakes Basin Soil Erosion and 
Sediment Control Program in the 2002 farm bill. Last fall, we passed 
the Great Lakes Legacy Act, which provides up to $50 million per year 
to the EPA to clean up contaminated sediments at Areas of Concern. The 
President provided $15 million in his fiscal year 2004 budget to get 
this program started.
  These steps, in conjunction with the efforts by our States, are 
positive, but unfortunately--based on the Federal Government's current 
level of funding--we are not able to keep pace with the problems facing 
the Great Lakes. An April 2003 GAO report found that the Federal 
Government has spent about $745 million over the last 10 years on Great 
Lakes restoration programs. Now, consider the fact that the GAO 
reported that the eight Great Lakes States spent $956 million during 
that same 10-year period. The Federal Government is simply not spending 
enough to protect and improve the Great Lakes--one-fifth of the world's 
freshwater.
  There is ample evidence to show that this current level of commitment 
is simply not enough. In 2001, there were nearly 600 beach closings as 
a result of E. colie bacteria, and State and local health authorities 
issued approximately 1,400 fish consumption advisories in the Great 
Lakes. In the years since the United States and Canada signed the Water 
Quality Agreement and agreed to give priority attention to the 43 
designated Areas of Concern, the United States has not been able to 
remove any of the U.S. sites from the list of Areas of Concern.
  For several years, I have been calling for a plan to restore the 
lakes and have been urging the Governors, mayors, the environmental 
community and other regional interests to agree on a vision for the 
future of the Great Lakes--not just the immediate future, but many 
years down the road. I have said that we must work together as partners 
to create and implement a long-term strategy on how we are going to 
restore and protect the lakes and that it is time for us to come 
together and develop a plan and put it in place.
  This bill would build upon the efforts by the Great Lakes States, 
which have convened a Working Group to establish their Great Lakes 
goals and priorities. Many of our regional interest groups and agencies 
have prepared strategic plans and priorities. And, we have brought in 
the President's Council on Environmental Quality so that the President 
will better understand the value of a long-term plan for the Great 
Lakes. I can't emphasize how important it is to have all of these 
interests working toward the same goal.
  A Great Lakes restoration program must be an equal partnership 
between the local, State, and Federal Governments and other interested 
citizens and organizations. I believe that this legislation would 
provide the tools needed for the long-term future of the Great Lakes. 
First, this legislation creates a $6 billion Great Lakes restoration 
grant program to augment existing Federal and State efforts to cleanup, 
protect, and restore the Great Lakes. In the April 2003 GAO report, the 
GAO reported that insufficient funding is often cited as a limitation 
to restoration efforts. Therefore, an additional $600 million in annual 
funding would be appropriated through the EPA's Great Lakes National 
Program Office, and the Program Office would provide grants to the 
Great Lakes States, Municipalities, and other applicants in 
coordination with the Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Advisory 
Board. This funding would provide the extra resources that existing 
programs do not have.

  While the Great lakes are a national and international resource, I 
believe that the region, not the bureaucrats in Washington, needs to be 
setting its priorities and guiding the future efforts on the lakes. 
This bill would require very close coordination between the EPA and the 
State and regional interests before grants are released. The Great 
Lakes Environmental Restoration Advisory Board, led by the Great Lakes 
Governors, would include mayors, Federal agencies, Native American 
tribes, environmentalists, industry representatives, and Canadian 
observers. This advisory board, which would include all of the 
interests in the Great Lakes, would provide priorities on restoration 
issues, such as invasive species control and prevention, wetlands 
restoration, contaminated sediments cleanup, and water quality 
improvements. Additionally, this advisory board would provide 
recommendations on which grant applications to fund. Ultimately, the 
input from the advisory board would mean that the region would be 
involved in determining the long-term future of the Great Lakes.
  As the April 2003 GAO study reported, environmental restoration 
activities in the Great Lakes are uncoordinated. So, the second goal of 
this legislation is the establishment of a Great Lakes Federal 
coordinating council to coordinate Federal activities in the Great 
Lakes. The EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office would serve as the 
council leader, and participants would include the key Federal agencies 
involved in Great Lakes work, such as NOAA, the Army Corps of 
Engineers, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of 
Interior. The council would meet at least three times per year to 
ensure that the efforts of Federal agencies concerning environmental 
restoration and protection of the Great Lakes are coordinated, 
effective, complementary, and cost-efficient. The council also would 
provide a list of its funding priorities to the Office of Management 
and Budget.
  Finally, our bill would address the GAO's second recent finding that 
environmental indicators and a monitoring system for the Great Lakes 
need to be developed to measure progress on new and existing 
restoration programs.
  The Great Lakes are threatened by many problems, and I have worked 
with Senator Levin and my other colleagues from the Great Lakes states 
to try to address those problems on an issue-by-issue basis. These 
programs are working to correct problems. However, the rate of our 
progress has not able to keep pace with the growing number of threats. 
For those of my colleagues who know the problems facing Great Lakes and 
even other large watersheds like the Chesapeake Bay, the

[[Page S9332]]

gulf coast, or the Everglades, you will agree that we need to refocus 
and improve our efforts on the Great Lakes to help reverse the trend 
toward additional degradation.
  The Great Lakes are a unique natural resource for Ohio and the entire 
region, and they need to be protected for future generations. I ask my 
colleagues to join me in support of this bill and in our efforts to 
help preserve and protect the long-term viability of our Great Lakes.
                                 ______