[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 4]
[House]
[Page 5417]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        THE CLEAN LAKES PROGRAM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walden of Oregon). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 468 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 2328.


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2328) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
reauthorize the Clean Lakes Program, with Mr. Gillmor in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, perhaps most importantly, I want to 
commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) for his leadership in 
being the principal architect and author of this legislation to 
reauthorize and improve the Clean Lakes Program.
  This bill will help restore and protect our Nation's 41 million acres 
of fresh water lakes by reauthorizing the EPA Clean Lakes Program. The 
bill authorizes $250 million of grants to help States clean up their 
lakes, and it increases to $25 million the amount to help States 
mitigate against the harmful effects of acid mine drainage and acid 
rain.
  The EPA no longer requests funding under the Clean Lakes Program, and 
has forced the States to stretch their limited nonpoint source funds to 
clean up their lakes. This legislation restores this important program 
and places a national focus and a priority on our lakes. It allows 
funds to solve the wide range of problems impairing our many lakes. 
Very importantly, Mr. Chairman, it relies on locally-based solutions 
involving restoration, rather than new Federal regulations.
  I certainly want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), and the entire 
committee for their support in moving this environmental legislation 
forward. It passed the subcommittee and the full committee unanimously 
by voice vote. I know of no opposition to it.
  I would certainly urge overwhelming support for this important 
environmental legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2328, to reauthorize the 
Clean Lakes Program. I want to express my appreciation to our chairman 
for his support of this initiative and for launching the hearings 
directing the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert), to move ahead with this legislation, which is a derivative 
of and an extension of the monumental Clean Water Act of 1972.
  That legislation, which I had the privilege to participate in as a 
member or administrator of the staff of the Committee on Public Works 
and Transportation at the time, was then, as it still is, one of the 
most far-reaching and successful environmental laws Congress has ever 
enacted.
  We have made a lot of progress over the years with the Clean Water 
Act. It is going on 30 years. One of the reasons is the collaborative 
partnerships that the act established between the States and the 
Federal Government to restore and maintain, as the opening directive of 
that act provides, restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and 
biological integrity of the Nation's waters.
  We have not quite reached the objective of swimmable and fishable in 
all of the Nation's waters, but we are moving in the right direction.
  Section 314 of that act established the Clean Lakes Program. That 
program directs EPA to work with the States to identify and implement 
programs to control, reduce, and mitigate levels of pollution in the 
Nation's lakes.
  It has been a valuable resource to reduce pollution. We have funded 
approximately $145 million of grant activities since 1945 in 49 States 
and 18 Indian tribes, 700 individual site assessments, restoration, and 
implementation projects. But it is only a start.
  The most recent national water quality inventory shows that States 
have reported that only 40 percent of lake acreage across this country 
has been assessed to determine whether the lakes meet the designated 
uses. Of that number, 40 percent are still impaired in some fashion. 
That means that 30 million acres of lakes across this country have a 
significant likelihood that the waters are not safe for fishing, 
swimming, or to support aquatic life in the lake and in the surrounding 
basin.
  Body contact sports was one of the principal objectives of the Clean 
Water Act of 1972, so people could indeed use the lakes: swim, fish, 
walk through the lake waters on the edge, as we do with small children 
in Minnesota and elsewhere across this country. But we have not 
attained that objective.
  This bill will help move us in that direction. It reauthorizes the 
Clean Lakes Program through 2005. It increases significantly the level 
of funding to $50 million a year. The funding would be directed to the 
States to diagnose the current condition of individual lakes and their 
watershed, to determine the extent and source of pollution, to develop 
lake restoration and protection plans that can actually be implemented, 
not just ideas and studies that remain on a shelf and gather dust, but 
plans that can actually be implemented.
  Secondly, to address the concern of acidity in lake levels, in lakes 
across this country, we provide authorization for programs aimed at 
restoring lake water quality and mitigating the harmful effects of lake 
acidity. Canada actually was ahead of the United States in addressing 
the problem of acid rain.
  Sweden was ahead of Canada. It was in the mid-1970s that Swedish 
scientists examined lakes that were in the early stages of death, death 
from acid rain coming from the Ruhr Valley in Germany, traveling over a 
thousand miles and being deposited on Swedish lakes that soon became 
clear, so clear you could see right to the bottom, no fish, no plant 
life. Dead lakes.
  We were slow to assess that problem and appreciate the United States. 
Canada caught on first because the prevailing winds carry acid 
depositions from the United States north into Canada. Canada mounted a 
massive counterattack on acid rain problems, and that led to the U.S.-
Canada Air Quality Agreement, in addition to the U.S-Canada Great Lakes 
Quality Agreement, that has resulted in restoration in lakes in Canada 
that were nearing the death levels of lakes in Sweden.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation will move us further along in the 
United States, in the direction of addressing the problems of the 
harmful effects of acid rain and high lake water acidity. This 
legislation also adds four lakes to the priority demonstration projects 
included in the Clean Lakes Program, one of which is Swan Lake, which 
is in my district, which is of tremendous regional significance for the 
people living in the iron ore mining country; a 100-square-mile lake in 
Itasca County that includes the City of Nashwauk, northeast of that 
lake, there are a wide range of recreational activities very popular 
there in the 5 months or 6 months that we can actually enjoy lake 
activities when they are not frozen over in Minnesota, boating, 
fishing; significant economic benefit to the entire region.
  Mr. Chairman, the water quality has deteriorated over the years, poor 
soil surrounding the lake and poor lake edge protection and watershed 
protection, as well as sewage into that lake. We will be able to 
address this problem and learn from it and apply its lessons elsewhere 
across the country and across, of course, my own State of 10,000 lakes, 
which really is about 15,000, actually more than that. We do not really 
count lakes under 200 acres.
  Mr. Chairman, I am really delighted; and I wanted to compliment the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Boehlert), our subcommittee chairman, for their support 
and also the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), who does not 
have as many lakes in his district, but who has been very generous in 
giving his strong support for this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Boehlert), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Water Resources and Environment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2328 reauthorizes the Clean Lakes 
Program, and we have one person in this Chamber to thank most for that 
action and that is our colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Sweeney). The gentleman deserves to be commended for the leadership he 
provided.
  This is an example of how the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure serves this institution and this Nation so well. We 
worked out any differences we had in a bipartisan way and are marching 
forward together.
  Mr. Chairman, let me point out that the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure under the leadership of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), the ranking member, are responsible for more legislation, 
more successful legislation in this Congress than in the preceding 
Congress, of greater significance than any other committee of this 
institution. I am very proud to identify with the committee.
  Let me say, unfortunately, that the Environmental Protection Agency 
has not requested funding for the Clean Lakes Program and the program 
has not received separate appropriations in recent years. Instead, 
States have been encouraged to fund clean lakes activities by using 
funds provided under section 319 of the Clean Water Act for already 
underfunded nonpoint source programs.
  Mr. Chairman, acting to reauthorize this program will send a clear 
message that we care about restoring and protecting our Nation's 41 
million acres of fresh-water lakes for our children and their children. 
Congress is not the only voice calling for this program. Various public 
and private organizations involved in lake water quality management had 
been seeking an increase in funding for the Clean Lakes Program.
  This program is seen as an important component of meeting the Clean 
Water Act's objective of having all our Nation's waters fishable and 
swimmable. In addition, there is growing concern about the damaging 
effects of acid rain and acid mine drainage on the Nation's lake. 
Separate, adequate and consistent funding for the Clean Lakes Program 
is necessary to meet the needs of the States' lake program.
  The Clean Lake Program offers an excellent opportunity for watershed-
based community-driven projects, as well as needed partnerships among 
Federal, State, and local entities. It is a good program. It deserves 
our enthusiastic support for all the right reasons.
  Let me once again commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) 
for the leadership he has provided, and let me once again proudly 
associate with my colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure for doing the deed today.
  Let me leave with this thought from Henry David Thoreau who said in 
Walden back in 1854: ``A lake is the landscape's most beautiful and 
expressive feature. It is earth's eye: looking into which the beholder 
measures the depth of his own nature.''

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Water Resources and Environment.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for yielding me this time and also to thank 
him for his leadership on this issue and so many issues that come 
before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  I also want to commend our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Boehlert), and our full committee chairman, my colleague, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), for working with us in a 
bipartisan manner which is, of course, the way this committee always 
works; and again I would add that is why we are so successful.
  I also want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), the 
author of this bill, for pushing and shoving and making sure this piece 
of legislation comes before us.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong support of H.R. 2328, a bill 
to reauthorize the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Lakes 
program. The Clean Lakes program was enacted in 1972 with the passage 
of the Clean Water Act, to provide additional funding to assess and 
control pollution levels in our Nation's lakes.
  This program has served as a valuable resource for States to identify 
the sources of pollution, as well as to develop and implement programs 
aimed at reducing pollution levels in and restoring the quality of lake 
systems.
  The bill we are considering would reauthorize the Clean Lakes 
program, providing up to $50 million annually through 2005.
  In addition, in order to address the persistent problems of high 
acidity in our Nation's lakes, this legislation would increase the 
authorization for programs aimed at reducing the levels of toxins 
present in these water bodies.
  Funding under this program could be used in developing new and 
innovative methods of neutralizing and restoring the natural buffering 
capacity of lakes, as well as other methods for removing toxic metals 
and other substances mobilized by high acidity.
  Finally, H.R. 2328 would add four additional lakes to the list of 
priority demonstration projects authorized under the Clean Lakes 
program.
  These lakes have been identified by the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure as regionally significant and deserving of 
additional attention under this program.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge an aye vote on this legislation. I again want to 
thank the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar), for yielding me this time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Sweeney), the principal author of this legislation.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I first want to start by thanking my 
chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster), from the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for providing the great 
leadership, the great management skills and guidance throughout all of 
the dealings in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; as 
well as the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar); the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking 
member on the subcommittee.
  When I came to Congress a year and a half ago, a lot of people said 
that Republicans and Democrats could not work together; we could not 
get the people's business done. I think if the American people were to 
look at the work being done by this Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, they would be incredibly impressed. As a freshman 
Member of Congress, I know I am and I am thankful. I am thankful 
because this piece of legislation is being passed today at a very 
important time.
  Recently, Mr. Chairman, the GAO released a study that I had requested 
on the problem of acid rain in the Adirondack Mountains, which is a 
region that is consumed by the 22nd Congressional District, which I 
represent. The results were striking. Many of our lakes in the 
Adirondacks are increasingly at risk from acid rain, much more than the 
EPA had originally forecast.
  Despite power plant emissions reductions under the 1990 Clean Air Act 
amendments, nearly half of our lakes have shown an increase in nitrogen 
levels.
  In fact, last year a similar EPA study showed an expansion of the 
effects of acid rain throughout. However, acid rain is not the only 
problem that our Nation's lakes are facing. They are facing problems 
such as invasive species, degraded shorelines, mercury contamination, 
wetland loss, lake-use conflicts, fisheries imbalances, and nonpoint 
source pollution, are all threatening our 41 million acres of 
freshwater lakes.
  This is part of the reason why I introduced H.R. 2328, and the other 
is because my district, as in many parts of the Nation, the lakes are a 
way of life. They provide a quality of life for the citizens who live 
near them. Whether it is tourism, drinking water, the natural habitat 
for many species of birds, fish and other animals, or simply 
recreation, many communities derive their livelihood from freshwater 
sources.
  Additionally, Mr. Chairman, I should point out that I have been 
disappointed in the EPA's attempt to shift funding requests under this 
program to section 319, which deals with nonpoint source pollution 
management. Our lakes are important enough to qualify and compete with 
other programs for Federal funding, and that is why we need this 
reauthorization program today.
  I believe this program is something we can all agree on. During its 
heyday in the 1970s and the 1980s, this program was popular with grass-
roots organizations and citizens because it offered them the 
opportunity to work with Federal, State, and local entities on both 
prevention and remediation of pollution.
  Fundamentally, this program focuses on restoration, not regulation. 
Some of the past successes included what happened in the State of 
Florida, when they did an assessment of the 7,000 freshwater lakes to 
set up a lake management priority system. The grant helped the State 
prioritize its lakes and their watershed for remedial management 
programs.
  In New York and Vermont they used a grant and teamed up to assess 
phosphorus pollution in Lake Champlain and set up a plan to monitor the 
phosphorous load in the lake.
  North Dakota used a clean lakes grant to seek correlations between 
micro-invertebrate communities and the trophic status of lakes.
  The results of these grants can help other States that might face 
similar problems, and without this program States and their communities 
will probably not have the resources or technical expertise to conduct 
studies for themselves.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a positive environmental initiative that I 
think a broad group of philosophies in this House can agree upon. It 
will provide resources to the most local levels of government to 
address environmental challenges in our lakes.
  Previously, the Clean Lakes program was a uniquely effective, cost-
efficient environmental program that provided seed money to State lake 
programs to projects on public lakes.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important 
legislation, and again I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Chairman Shuster) for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for yielding me this time; and the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Sweeney) for his leadership; the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for his leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2328, a bill to 
reauthorize the Clean Lakes program. This program recognizes the beauty 
and value of our lakes and the need to protect and restore these 
wonderful resources. It is high time we reauthorize and fund the Clean 
Lakes program.
  As we know, the Clean Lakes program was established in 1972 as part 
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the 
Clean Water Act. The authorization expired in 1990, and the program has 
not been funded since 1995 when the EPA stopped requesting money to run 
it.
  While the EPA may have stopped requesting money for clean lakes, I 
have not, since New Jersey has many lakes that need attention and 
immediate attention. As a member of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and 
Independent Agencies, I have consistently supported a separate 
appropriation for the section 314 program. Perhaps with the passage of 
this bill, a clean lakes earmark will now be possible at the 
appropriations level.
  As we know, section 319 deals with watershed restoration issues. 
Section 314 deals with lake monitoring and protection and management 
issues. Although related, these two issues are different and should not 
have to compete for limited dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had a sad experience in New Jersey where the 
lumping together of section 314 and section 319 simply has not worked. 
This bill would move us towards correcting that problem, and I strongly 
support it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the very great significance of this legislation is 
underscored in many of the lakes and the communities throughout 
Minnesota. We are blessed, as other less fortunate communities across 
the country would like to be, in that many of our towns have a lake 
right in the town. Over the years, before the 1960s, before we had a 
clean water program, many towns just allowed their storm sewers to 
discharge into the lakes. Many even allowed their sanitary sewers, 
after primary treatment, to discharge into lakes. Then they began to 
realize what an important resource the lake is and diverted sewage away 
from it and diverted street runoff away from the lakes, although many 
in the northern tier continued to pile up snow from winter storms on 
the lake. Where else? It seemed sensible. Let it melt, add to the 
lake's waters. Now we know that there is pollution in winter as well as 
in summer. Cities now avoid that tragedy inflicted upon the Nation's 
lakes.
  So what we have is many lakes that should be great resources for 
swimming, for tourism, for boating, for fishing, that have substantial 
amounts of pollution embedded in the lake bottom. In the sediment under 
those waters, plants grow up, transmit the pollutants to the fish who 
feed on the plant life, and then humans consume the fish and in turn 
find embedded in their body cells the pollutants that we all know are 
so harmful.
  Why is this legislation so important? Because cities can have access 
to funds to develop plans to clean up those lakes, restore them perhaps 
not to their pristine original condition created by the glaciers when 
they retreated 10,000 years ago, but at least to be swimmable, to be 
fishable, to be usable, to be a community attraction rather than a 
point of shame for a community.
  This legislation will provide States, through States to communities, 
the resources, financial resources, they need to make their lakes the 
great treasures that they should be. As the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Boehlert) so poetically described in the closing words of his 
remarks on the House Floor, lakes should be the eye through which a 
community sees itself and sees its treasurers.
  So I have great hopes for this legislation; and I want to take this 
opportunity to urge the administration to, in the future, include 
funding for the Clean Lakes program, which they have not done for 
several years, and to urge our colleagues on the Committee on 
Appropriations, it was very encouraging to have the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) address the issue rather directly, that 
enactment of this legislation will give the Committee on Appropriations 
an opportunity to provide funding for the Clean Lakes program. That 
will be the ultimate success of this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge an aye vote on H.R. 2328, the Clean Lakes 
program, because it helps restore and protect our Nation's 41 million 
acres of freshwater lakes. It helps States clean up their lakes, and it 
mitigates the harmful effects of high acidity like acid rain.
  Now, one may ask why is this particular bill, H.R. 2328, needed? It 
is because of the pollution or habitat degradation that impairs 39 
percent of the 17 million acres which have already been surveyed. EPA 
currently requires States to stretch their limited nonpoint source 
funds to clean up their lakes. H.R. 2328 restores a national focus and 
priority on our lakes.
  I think it was very instructive, as the distinguished ranking member 
pointed out, the problem of such things as acid rain and how in Europe 
acid rain from the Ruhr Valley caused problems all the way up in 
Sweden.

                              {time}  1415

  Certainly here in the United States, acid rain knows no State 
boundaries. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why we need to have a 
national program, because certainly acid rain is something that crosses 
State lines, and the acid rain from one State can very seriously damage 
the lakes of another State, as has, in fact, been the case.
  Now, the background to this program, which was established under 
section 314 of the Clean Water Act, provides for financial and 
technical assistance to States in restoring publicly owned lakes. In 
recognition of the unique water quality challenges, facing our Nation's 
lakes, Congress included the Clean Lakes Program as part of the 
original 1972 Clean Water Act.
  Section 314 contains various State assessment and reporting 
requirements, a national demonstration program, and an EPA grant 
program for assistance to States in carrying out projects and program 
responsibilities.
  On June 23, 1999, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) 
introduced H.R. 2328. This was referred solely to the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure. H.R. 2328 would reauthorize funding 
for the Clean Lakes Program for fiscal years 2000 through 2005, and 
would increase the authorized annual funding levels from $30 million to 
$100 million.
  On October 18, 1999, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
Environment held a hearing on Clean Lakes and Water Quality Management 
and on H.R. 2328. On March 8, 2000, the Subcommittee on Water Resources 
and Environment marked up H.R. 2328.
  The subcommittee adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
This amendment, A, reduced the funding authorization from $100 million 
annually to $50 million annually; and, B, added additional lakes to the 
list of lakes to receive priority consideration for demonstration 
projects; and, C, increased the special authorization of financial 
assistance to States to mitigate harmful effects of high acidity from 
acid deposition or acid mine drainage from $15 million to $25 million; 
and, D, prevented the report to Congress on the Clean Lakes 
Demonstration Program from expiring under the Federal Reports 
Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995.
  The subcommittee reported H.R. 2328, as amended, favorably to the 
full committee. On March 16, 2000, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure reported the bill as amended by the subcommittee by 
unanimous voice vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much time 
remains on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has 16\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has 
14\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Brown).
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in working with the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), the ranking member, concerning Lake Apopka in Florida.
  Florida, as my colleagues know, is one of the third largest States, 
and Lake Apopka is the second most polluted lake in the State of 
Florida.
  We have been harmed by many years of agricultural storm water 
discharges, as well as historical discharges of both domestic and 
industrial waste water. Because of this, this particular lake has been 
in the news. Many Federal officials have come down, and there is a lot 
of concern as to how this relates to the community.
  I am hoping that the committee will look into Lake Apopka as we move 
this bill through the process and consider adding this to the list.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, could the gentlewoman 
from Florida describe for us the size of the lake in acres. Does the 
gentlewoman from Florida have that information available?
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I do 
not have it, but I will have that information for the gentleman from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentlewoman from Florida, are 
boating activities prevalent on the lake? I yield to the gentlewoman 
from Florida.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, in fact, I have been in 
touch with the Water Management District, and they will forward that 
information.
  In reviewing the bill, I was very concerned that Florida was not 
represented in the bill. Of course this lake is crucial to the State of 
Florida.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentlewoman from Florida, is it 
a lake that is used considerably for fishing as well?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Fishing, Mr. Chairman. But, as I said, there 
has been a shift in the usage because of the contamination of the lake.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, but because the lake 
waters are contaminated, the fish are probably not fit for sustainable 
human consumption.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will further 
yield, that is correct. Also, there has been a shift in the vegetation 
and wildlife in communities around the lake because of the polluted 
facility.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, this certainly is the type of lake and 
these are the conditions that this legislation seeks to address. The 
authority provided in the legislation for grants to States and through 
States to municipalities is the appropriate venue for the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Brown) to pursue this matter.
  We will certainly, on the committee, be very happy to support the 
gentlewoman's interest in seeing that there are adequate resources when 
appropriations are made. There are no appropriations available now. The 
point of this legislation is to authorize expanded funding through a 
program from EPA of grants to States and through States to 
municipalities or other lesser units of government that then will 
undertake cleanup plans.
  It would be useful if the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) could 
provide us with any restoration plan that either the city or county or 
joint powers agreement authority may have developed for the cleanup of 
this lake and any other supporting information, as the gentlewoman has 
already indicated. I am sure the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman 
Shuster) will support us in the initiative of appealing to EPA at the 
appropriate time for consideration of this project.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly concur with the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) 
and will be very happy to work on this with them to find an adequate 
and acceptable solution.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), the principal 
author of this legislation.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
for yielding me the time. I echo the thoughts of the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Brown) and hope that we can work together in finding a 
solution.
  The beauty of this legislation really is that it provides an 
opportunity for localities and people in communities to really interact 
and do some positive proactive work.
  I have got a letter here from a Robert Mac Millan, who is the 
chairman of the Saratoga Lake Protection and Improvement District. I 
would like to read it because it will give people the sense of the 
kinds of things and kinds of people that are interested in this.

       Dear Congressman Sweeney: 
       I am writing to you in support of your Clean Lakes Bill 
     which will be the subject of a legislative hearing.
       I am the Chairman of the Saratoga Lake Protection and 
     Improvement District (SLPID). The SLPID was created as 
     political subdivision of New York State in 1986 to supervise, 
     manage, and control Saratoga Lake. Our primary 
     responsibilities are to enhance recreational use of Saratoga 
     Lake, protect real property values, conserve fish and 
     wildlife and enhance the scenic beauty of the Lake. We are 
     funded primarily by a special tax assessment placed by 
     lakefront property owners. This tax assessment was increased 
     65.9 percent for the tax year 2000 and will still fall short 
     of funding necessary to control all of the actions we need on 
     the Lake.
       Saratoga Lake is experiencing a major increase in aquatic 
     weed growth and zebra mussels which adversely affects all 
     aspects of our Lake. One of the most invasive weeds is 
     Eurasian Water Milfoil, a plant not native to North America. 
     Our primary method of weed control has been mechanical 
     harvesting, but we find that harvesting is not accomplishing 
     control of the aquatic weed problem. We have applied for a 
     permit from New York State Department of Environmental 
     Conservation to treat two of the problem areas in the Lake 
     with aquatic herbicide. This treatment will be closely 
     monitored for effectiveness and incorporated in a lake 
     watershed and management plan which is presently ongoing.
       I am aware of the Federal Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance 
     Prevention and Control Act of 1990 which was to mitigate the 
     financial impact of non-indigenous aquatic species such as 
     Eurasian Water Milfoil and zebra mussels on local 
     governments. Our current effort to control the weed in 
     Saratoga Lake through the use of an EPA and New York State 
     approved herbicide may be an excellent demonstration project 
     which could be useful to other lakes experiencing similar 
     problems with non-native aquatic species. Providing our 
     treatment efforts are successful this year we hope to obtain 
     funding to accomplish a whole lake treatment during 2001.

  Mr. Chairman, I read this letter and bring this letter to the floor 
to point out this will be the norm. This will be the norm that occurs 
throughout this Nation as we fight to preserve our clean water sources.
  This bill being passed today is coming at a crucial time, as I stated 
before, especially since we have taken many significant steps in the 
last decade to reduce the effects of pollutants, especially nitrates 
and sulfur dioxide throughout. But in some respects, we are losing that 
battle.
  This will provide us a ground-up approach to that effort. This will 
give us the opportunity for people in the local communities to fight 
for these valuable resources. I am very proud to be the sponsor of this 
bill, and I look forward to its implementation.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for a general debate has expired.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the 
bill shall be considered by sections as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment, and pursuant to the rule, each section is 
considered read.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. GRANTS TO STATES

       Section 314(c)(2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     act (33 U.S.C. 1324(c)92)) is amended by striking 
     ``$50,000,000'' the first place it appears and all that 
     follows through ``1990'' and inserting ``$50,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2001 through 2005''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
  There being no amendments to section 1, the Clerk will designate 
section 2.
  The text of section 2 is as follows:

     SEC. 2. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

       Section 314(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1324(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``Otsego Lake, New York; 
     Oneida Lake, New York; Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania; Swan 
     Lake, Itasca County, Minnesota;'' after Sauk Lake, 
     Minnesota;'';
       (2) in paragraph (3) by striking ``By'' and inserting 
     ``Notwithstanding section 3003 of the Federal Reports 
     Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (31 U.S.C. 1113 note; 109 
     Stat. 734-736), by''; and
       (3) in paragraph (4)(B)(i) by striking ``$15,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$25,000,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2?
  There being no amendments to section 2, are there further amendments 
to the bill?


                    Amendment Offered By Mr. Stupak

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stupak:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF BULK FRESH WATER SALES FROM GREAT 
                   LAKES.

       Section 314 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1324) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Prohibition of Bulk Fresh Water Sales From Great 
     Lakes.--
       ``(1) In general.--As a condition of the receipt of grant 
     assistance under this section in a fiscal year, the 
     Administrator shall require a State to provide assurances 
     satisfactory to the Administrator that the State will 
     prohibit in such fiscal year the sale of bulk fresh water 
     from any of the Great Lakes.
       ``(2) Bulk fresh water defined.--The term `bulk fresh 
     water' means fresh water extracted from any of the Great 
     Lakes in amounts intended for transportation by tanker or 
     similar form of mass transportation, without further 
     processing. The term does not include drinking water in 
     containers intended for personal consumption.''.

  Mr. STUPAK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment which is 
very important to the residents in my district and many congressional 
districts throughout the Great Lakes region.
  My amendment would prevent the sale of fresh water from our Great 
Lakes. Our precious water resources should not be sold to the highest 
bidder, and we must ensure that this cannot happen.
  Our Great Lakes are a tremendous recreational resource. They provide 
boating, water skiing, fishing, and swimming opportunities. Our lakes 
are also a tremendous source of drinking water. Most notably, of 
course, are the Great Lakes, which contain 20 percent of the world's 
fresh water supply.
  The 35 million people residing near the Great Lakes have always 
appreciated the lakes' beauty, vastness, cleanliness, and now they must 
appreciate that it is also a targeted commodity.

                              {time}  1430

  In 1998, a Canadian company planned to ship 3 billion liters of water 
from Lake Superior over 5 years and sell it to Asia. I offered 
legislation that was passed by the House of Representatives that called 
on the United States Government to oppose this action. The permit was 
subsequently withdrawn. The demand for water continues, however, as 
freshwater supplies dwindle throughout the world.
  In the United States, each person consumes 100 gallons of water each 
day. The global demand meanwhile doubles every 21 years. Think about 
it. The world water demand doubles every 21 years. The World Bank 
predicts that by 2025 more than 3 billion people in 52 countries will 
suffer water shortages for drinking or sanitation. Where, I ask, will 
countries find clean, fresh water? They will look to alternative 
sources, sources which are outside their area and, more likely, outside 
their borders.
  It is understandable, therefore, that the pristine water of our Great 
Lakes will be targeted. The method is real. The threat is real. To 
those who say the bulk shift of fresh water is not economically 
feasible, I say, look around us. From Newfoundland in Canada, to Lake 
Superior in Michigan, to Alaska, several companies are competing to 
ship our precious freshwater resources overseas.
  For those who take a short-term view of protecting this resource, 
bulk sales of fresh water must seem irresistible. Throw a hose in the 
water, hook up a pump, and fill an ocean tanker. Maximum profits with 
minimum overhead. A windfall if a State wanted to license this kind of 
operation.
  Yes, our Great Lakes are renewable; but they are not replaceable. I 
am very concerned that shortsighted policies could allow for large-
scale diversions of Great Lakes water, threatening the environment, the 
economy, and the welfare of the Great Lakes region.
  We are not merely citizens of the Great Lakes. We are their 
guardians. We are their stewards. We are their protectors. We encourage 
conservation, and we return 95 percent of all the water taken from the 
Great Lakes.
  Setting aside global water use and trade policies, I ask Members to 
consider how bulk diversion of Great Lakes water could jeopardize our 
efforts to be good stewards. In terms of water quality, if we permit 
bulk diversions to further lower water levels, we increase the 
concentration of runoff contaminants, of fuel pollution. As lake levels 
drop, which they are now, we increase the need for dredging to maintain 
our vital waterways, further compounding the problem with toxic 
sediments.
  We must consider all threats posed to our Great Lakes. We must be 
conscious of the threat posed by the sale or diversion of Great Lakes 
water just as carefully as we weigh the impact of the invasive species 
or drilling for gas and oil in the Great Lakes. None of these concerns 
are truly independent of one another in terms of their potential impact 
on the 35 million people who depend on our most vital natural resource, 
the Great Lakes, our great treasures.
  My amendment would withhold grant assistance from Great Lakes States 
which allow the sale of bulk fresh water from the Great Lakes. This 
restriction would apply to water extracted from a lake for mass 
transportation without further processing and does not apply to bottled 
water used for consumption.
  The cleanup of our lakes will preserve their beauty for generations 
to come. The ban on water sales from our Great Lakes will also preserve 
their beauty and our greatest natural resource for generations to come.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I rise not so much in opposition to the concept. In fact, not at all 
in opposition to the concept. I support very vigorously the idea that 
the gentleman is trying to advance, but I do not support the vehicle 
that he has chosen to approach this subject.
  The matter of diversion of water from the Great Lakes is an issue of 
very great concern to those of us who live in this heartland of the 
United States. The Great Lakes represent 20 percent of all the fresh 
water on the face of the Earth. Lake Superior represents half of that 
water. Lake Superior is equal to all the water of the other four Great 
Lakes. It is a vast resource. The only other lake in the world that 
approaches the volume and the enormity of Lake Superior is Lake Baikal 
in Russia.
  We have been vigilant, on both the U.S. and the Canadian side, about 
the water quality, about the volume of water, through the international 
joint commission; about the rising or falling levels of water in the 
Great Lakes. We have also been concerned that there may be attempts by 
water-short areas of the North American continent and water-short areas 
of other places on the face of the Earth that may have their eyes fixed 
on the Great Lakes.
  Beginning with the coal slurry pipeline in 1970, the eyes of the 
western States were fixed on the Great Lakes, admittedly under the 
guise of selling low sulfur coal in an economical transport means of 
pipeline to the lakehead in Duluth, where then it could be transferred 
to tankers for lower lake port power plants. But those of us who 
maintain vigil on the shores of Gitche Gumee said this also has the 
capacity of draining the water out of the lakes. They could reverse 
those pumps. Once they are that close to Lake Superior, they could just 
drop a pump in the lake and start shipping the water westward. We 
vigorously opposed and ultimately stopped the coal slurry pipeline.
  In 1986, in furtherance of this concern, I offered an amendment in 
committee in the Water Resources Development Act, in cooperation with 
Democrats and Republicans throughout the Great Lakes States, to 
require, before any water could be diverted out of any of the Great 
Lakes, unanimous consent of the governors of the Great Lakes States 
and, though we could not bind, the province of Ontario. That province 
is so vast it covers all five of the Great Lakes. And we succeeded in 
getting that language enacted. It has been successful until very 
recently in scaring off potential diverters.
  Then, in 1998, a Canadian company based in the Province of Ontario 
got up the idea of selling, in bulk means, water from Lake Ontario to 
overseas sources. An immediate outcry rose in the Province and, of 
course, on the U.S. side of the Great Lakes that resulted in the 
Province of Ontario denying a permit to withdraw water. But the 
potential remains for withdrawing water from one of the Great Lakes and 
bottling it in little containers. And if it can be bottled in pint and 
quart and gallon and 5 gallon sizes, then what is to prevent someone 
from shipping it in larger containers of 5,000 or 10,000 gallons or 
more?
  So the concern of my good friend, who maintains a watchful eye from 
his northern peninsula, upper peninsula, a Michigan outpost, on the 
lake is well placed and fully founded and justified.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Oberstar was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. So I compliment the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, on his 
vigilance on this matter, but I feel that the vehicle is not 
appropriate. It has, first of all, not had widespread scrutiny in our 
committee. We have not had an opportunity until just now to review the 
approach the gentleman takes.
  It has been my intention that, in cooperation with the gentleman from 
Michigan and others of our colleagues in the Great Lakes States, to 
approach this subject in the forthcoming Water Resources Development 
Act of 2000.
  I would like to ask my colleague if he would consider withdrawing the 
amendment, preserving the option and, of course, protecting his right 
to come forth in the WRDA bill and to cooperate with us in a similar 
venture.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding. If 
there is going to be a WRDA bill, that is the first if. Secondly, if we 
will be given an opportunity to offer the amendment.
  We have a bill; it is 2595. As the gentleman knows, the International 
Joint Commission on February 22 put forth their recommendations on what 
should be done to not only stop vast transfers of water out of the 
Great Lakes region but also what should be in the meantime to make sure 
the States provide the necessary data and information so we can make 
intelligent decisions concerning our water resources. Not just for 
transfer or sale but also for the ecology of it, for the environment, 
and for the conservation.
  So if we would have a WRDA bill, and if we were to be given the 
opportunity to appear before the committee to present H.R. 2595, my 
bill on the Great Lakes, or a modified version taking in the 
International Joint Commission's recommendations, I would be willing to 
entertain that.
  I see we probably have a number of more speakers, so I would like to 
hear the other speakers before I withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) 
has once again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Oberstar was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, if I might inquire of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) regarding the formulation. I think we may be 
at the end of hearings, or there may be an opportunity for further 
hearings on the WRDA bill, but it is my understanding that the chair of 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure intends to proceed 
with a WRDA bill for 2000.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it is certainly our intention to move the 
WRDA bill this year, WRDA 2000. The administration just sent their bill 
up, so we will be dealing with it.
  And I would say to my good friend from Michigan that we certainly 
want to work with him. I do not think this is the appropriate vehicle. 
The WRDA bill would seem to be more appropriate.
  We just received this amendment, literally handed to us. So while we 
are aware of the basic issue the gentleman is attempting to address, 
which is complex and which is very important, we are quite happy to 
work with the gentleman to see if we cannot accommodate him on a more 
appropriate vehicle, such as the WRDA bill or another related piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it does seem to me 
that WRDA is the appropriate vehicle, and I further yield to the 
gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. STUPAK. The few times I have done bills on Great Lakes to 
preserve and protect the Great Lakes, they have been bipartisan bills. 
I would like to remain in that bipartisan atmosphere. At times, it gets 
a little difficult, when we have people outside the Great Lakes coming 
into our region and our districts and making wild statements about our 
lack of protection of the Great Lakes. So we are always vigilant to 
look for opportunities to protect our Great Lakes and our Great Lakes 
resources.
  As long as I am a Member of Congress, I will continue to work day in 
and day out to protect the Great Lakes. Based upon the assurances from 
the chairman and the ranking member, however, I will look forward to 
working with both the chairman and the ranking member to work to 
protect the Great Lakes in the WRDA bill, WRDA 2000.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
gentleman for his leadership on this issue, for his vigilance, his 
concern, and for his statesmanship in making this unanimous consent 
request. And I want to assure the gentleman that we will work very 
closely and very diligently toward his objective.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. --. SENSE OF CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT REGARDING NOTICE.

       (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or products that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided under this 
     Act, it is the sense of the Congress that entities receiving 
     such assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase 
     only American-made equipment and products.
       (b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance under this Act, the head of each Federal 
     agency shall provide to each recipient of the assistance a 
     notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the 
     Congress.
       (c) Notice of Report.--Any entity which receives funds 
     under this Act shall report any expenditures on foreign-made 
     items to the Congress within 180 days of the expenditure.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we do not 
know what this amendment is, have not seen it or heard about it, have 
not smelled it. This is a surprise.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this is a standard Buy American 
amendment that has been added to every transportation bill that we have 
offered.

                              {time}  1445

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has an 
amendment to this bill at the desk.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object. May we have 
a copy of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will rereport the amendment.
  The Clerk rereported the amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has 
reserved a point of order.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to notify the committee 
that I did bring this to the floor earlier this morning but I have been 
testifying before the Committee on Ways and Means and would have 
apprised the leadership of it. But it is an amendment that has been 
passed to every probation bill and every authorizing bill that involves 
the expenditures of funds. It has not been a controversial bill in the 
past. I do not believe it should be at this point.
  In any event, it encourages the purchases of American-made products. 
Anyone who gets assistance under the bill shall get a notice of 
Congress intention to urge them, wherever possible, to buy American-
made products.
  Finally, anyone who is getting these funds give us a report back when 
they spend the money how they spend that money.
  Now, we are running about a $300 billion trade deficit. I think if we 
are going to go ahead and spend money for goods and services that those 
goods and services, wherever possible, should be American goods and 
services.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to withdraw my point of 
order. Having had the opportunity now to see the amendment, it is a 
buy-American amendment, which I have vigorously supported in the past 
and am happy to support today.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the 
gentleman, and I apologize to both gentleman from having not been here 
to explain it to them earlier.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), of course we have had buy-American 
provisions in other legislation of this committee. But the Part B of 
the sense of Congress, does the notice to recipients in Part B flow 
from the sentence in the previous subsection (a), that is, the sense of 
Congress, so that Part B is also a sense of Congress and not a 
requirement in law that, in providing financial assistance, the head of 
each agency shall provide a notice?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, section (b) states 
that, even though it is the sense of the Congress that they are not 
mandated to buy American, section (b) mandates that the agency shall at 
least make notice that the Congress encourages the purchase of American 
products.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
the sense of Congress language terminates with subsection (a) but 
subsection (b) is a requirement upon Federal agencies to provide 
notice.
  Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster), is that the understanding of the chairman?
  Part B of the Buy-American provision is a requirement upon Federal 
agencies providing assistance to provide a notice and to report.
  Mr. Chairman, is that consistent with the understanding of the 
chairman? I just want to make this clear.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I guess that is what the language says. 
There might be a technical problem with some of the language which we 
would have to work out in conference here.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time to clarify the 
concern of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the Congress 
urges the recipients of this money to buy American, but the Congress 
also requires those agencies that give the money to give them a notice 
that Congress does encourage them to buy.
  They are not compelled to buy, but what they are compelled to give is 
a notice and give us a report on the activity.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
is it his understanding that this applies only to the legislation 
before us today?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, absolutely, to this specific bill and 
this bill alone. I will have another amendment for his next bill very 
similar.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Camp) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gillmor, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2328) to amend 
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Clean Lakes 
Program, pursuant to House Resolution 468, reported the bill back to 
the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________