[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16053-16056]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     GREAT LAKES LEGACY ACT OF 2002

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1070) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
authorize the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
make grants for remediation of sediment contamination in areas of 
concern and to authorize assistance for research and development of 
innovative technologies for such purpose, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1070

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Great Lakes Legacy Act of 
     2002''.

     SEC. 2. REMEDIATION OF SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION IN AREAS OF 
                   CONCERN IN THE GREAT LAKES.

       Section 118(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(12) Remediation of sediment contamination in areas of 
     concern.--
       ``(A) In general.--In accordance with this paragraph, the 
     Administrator, acting through the Great Lakes National 
     Program Office and in coordination with the Office of 
     Research and Development, may carry out qualified projects.
       ``(B) Qualified project.--In this paragraph, a qualified 
     project is a project to be carried out in an area of concern 
     located wholly or in part in the United States that--
       ``(i) monitors or evaluates contaminated sediment;
       ``(ii) subject to subparagraph (D), implements a plan to 
     remediate contaminated sediment; or
       ``(iii) prevents further or renewed contamination of 
     sediment.
       ``(C) Priority.--In selecting projects to carry out under 
     this paragraph, the Administrator shall give priority to a 
     project that--
       ``(i) constitutes remedial action for contaminated 
     sediment;
       ``(ii) has been identified in a Remedial Action Plan 
     submitted pursuant to paragraph (3) and is ready to be 
     implemented; or
       ``(iii) will use an innovative approach, technology, or 
     technique that may provide greater environmental benefits or 
     equivalent environmental benefits at a reduced cost.
       ``(D) Limitation.--The Administrator may not carry out a 
     project under this paragraph for remediation of contaminated 
     sediments located in an area of concern--
       ``(i) if an evaluation of remedial alternatives for the 
     area of concern has not been conducted, including a review of 
     the short-term and long-term effects of the alternatives on 
     human health and the environment; or
       ``(ii) if the Administrator determines that the area of 
     concern is likely to suffer significant further or renewed 
     contamination from existing sources of pollutants causing 
     sediment contamination following completion of the project.
       ``(E) Non-federal matching requirement.--
       ``(i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of a 
     project carried out under this paragraph shall be not less 
     than 35 percent.
       ``(ii) In-kind contributions.--The non-Federal share of the 
     cost of a project carried out under this paragraph may 
     include the value of in-kind services contributed by a non-
     Federal sponsor, including any in-kind service performed 
     under an administrative order on consent or judicial consent 
     decree, but not including any in-kind services performed 
     under a unilateral administrative order or court order.
       ``(iii) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share 
     of the cost of the operation and maintenance of a project 
     carried out under this paragraph shall be 100 percent.
       ``(F) Maintenance of effort.--The Administrator may not 
     carry out a project under this paragraph unless the non-
     Federal sponsor enters into such agreements with the 
     Administrator as the Administrator may require to ensure that 
     the non-Federal sponsor will maintain its aggregate 
     expenditures from all other sources for remediation programs 
     in the area of concern in which the project is located at or 
     above the average level of such expenditures in its 2 fiscal 
     years preceding the date on which the project is initiated.
       ``(G) Coordination.--In carrying out projects under this 
     paragraph, the Administrator shall coordinate with the 
     Secretary of the Army, and with the Governors of States in 
     which the projects are located, to ensure that Federal and 
     State assistance for remediation in areas of concern is used 
     as efficiently as possible.
       ``(H) Authorization of appropriations.--
       ``(i) In general.--In addition to other amounts authorized 
     under this section, there is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this paragraph $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2003 through 2007.
       ``(ii) Availability.--Funds appropriated under clause (i) 
     shall remain available until expended.''.

     SEC. 3. RELATIONSHIP TO FEDERAL AND STATE AUTHORITIES.

       Section 118(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1268) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``construed to affect'' and inserting the 
     following: ``construed--
       ``(1) to affect'';
       (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     or'';
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) to affect any other Federal or State authority that 
     is being used or may be used to facilitate the cleanup and 
     protection of the Great Lakes.''; and
       (4) by aligning the remainder of the text of paragraph (1) 
     (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with 
     paragraph (2) (as added by paragraph (3) of this section).

     SEC. 4. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--In coordination with other Federal and 
     local officials, the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency is authorized to conduct research on the 
     development and use of innovative approaches, technologies, 
     and techniques for the remediation of sediment contamination 
     in areas of concern in the Great Lakes.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to amounts authorized under 
     other laws, there is authorized to be appropriated to carry 
     out this section $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 
     through 2007.
       (2) Availability.--Funds appropriated under paragraph (1) 
     shall remain available until expended.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1070, the Great Lakes 
Legacy Act of 2002. H.R. 1070 reflects a consensus approach to 
addressing sediment contamination in the Great Lakes.
  The Great Lakes are, without question, a vital resource for both the 
United States and Canada. The Great Lakes system provides a waterway to 
move goods; water supply for drinking, industrial and agricultural 
purposes; a source of hydroelectric power; and swimming and many other 
recreational activities.
  The industrialization and development of the Great Lakes Basin over 
the past 200 years has had an adverse impact on the Great Lakes. As a 
result, many of the Great Lakes are under fish advisories warning 
people not to eat fish that may be in the water there.
  By treaty, the United States and Canada are developing cleanup plans 
for the Great Lakes and for specific areas of concern. Unfortunately, 
only one area of concern, located in Canada, has been cleaned up. Most 
of the activity at U.S. areas of concern has occurred as a result of 
Superfund enforcement action or threat of such action.
  However, Superfund's suitability for cleaning up the Great Lakes is 
limited.

[[Page 16054]]

The Great Lakes sediments became contaminated as a result of pollution 
from many sources over several generations. Applying Superfund could 
make virtually every citizen of the Great Lakes Basin a liable party.
  There are better ways to address this problem. One solution is to 
encourage cooperative efforts through public-private partnerships. That 
is the solution recommended by the bill H.R. 1070, the Great Lakes 
Legacy Act of 2002.
  H.R. 1070 would authorize $50 million a year for 5 years to clean up 
contaminated sediment in areas of concern in the Great Lakes. This 
Federal funding must be matched with at least a 35 percent non-Federal 
share, encouraging local and private sector investment. This bill also 
makes sure that these funds are well spent.
  At some sites, removing sediments will be the best way to address 
short- and long-term risks. At other sites, the last thing we want to 
do is go in and stir up contaminated sediments by dredging, causing 
even more harm to the environment.
  This consensus bill does not try to presume any particular cleanup 
option. It simply encourages stakeholders to take action and to make 
sure that the action they take will make a real improvement to human 
health and the environment.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and his 
colleagues for working with stakeholders from the Great Lakes to 
advance this legislation. I believe this is a great example of 
bipartisan legislation that everyone in this Chamber can support. I 
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for his splendid 
statement and full discussion of the subject at hand and for his 
leadership and, as always, bipartisan cooperation in bringing this 
legislation to the floor today.
  I also want to acknowledge the support and cooperation of our 
chairman of the full committee the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) 
and seeing to it that we move this bill expeditiously through 
subcommittee, full committee and to the floor today.
  There is no question this bill is a long time in coming, and it 
should, when enacted and implemented, bring to fruition the long-
planned and sort of haltingly carried out efforts to clean up decades-
long contamination of this repository of one-fifth of all the fresh 
water on the face of the Earth, the Great Lakes.
  It has been my home all my life, living not on the shore but close 
enough to the shore of Lake Superior, my hometown of Chisholm just 
about 90 miles away. I spent a great deal of my time as a young lad 
near the shores of Lake Superior and my service in the Congress, my 
District extends from Duluth all the way up to Canada, along that 
splendid rocky outcrop of the 3 billion year old deposits of basalt 
that look broodingly out onto Lake Superior, which represents 10 
percent of the fresh water on the face of the Earth.
  My predecessor Congressman John Blatnik was the original author of 
the first Clean Water Act, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 
that began the Nation's efforts to clean up the waters of the United 
States and was the one who inspired the research laboratories that now 
are located throughout the Great Lakes to serve as a beacon for the 
protection, beacon out on those fresh waters to serve as the protection 
for the future generations of the Great Lakes, on the purity and 
quality of those waters.
  In years past, when I chaired the Subcommittee on Investigations and 
Oversight, I held extensive hearings on the United States-Canada Clean 
Water Agreement to push administrations in the past to action on 
cleanup of the toxic hot spots, or areas of concern as they are called. 
It is just an unspeakable tragedy that nearly 100 percent of the near 
shore waters of the Great Lakes and connecting tributaries are under 
fish consumption advisories because those fish have taken up toxics 
from bottom feeding organisms, from plants, carried them in their 
bodies and then are consumed by humans. It was presented in documented 
testimony in the hearings that I held in the Subcommittee on 
Investigations and Oversight and corroborated since then in subsequent 
hearings. The chairman has conducted a few.
  If a person lives within 20 miles of the Great Lakes and they eat 
fish once a week, they have on average 440 parts per billion PCBs in 
their body. If they live anywhere else in America and eat fish once a 
week, they probably have only 5 parts per billion per PCBs in their 
body. I need not go into the adverse health consequences of PCBs. They 
are well-documented in the medical and scientific literature.
  We had a researcher, Dr. Waylon Swain, from the University of 
Michigan testify at the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight 
hearing who had done tests on his 16-year-old daughter of the fatty 
tissue in her body and the content of PCBs and then did a computer 
projection to determine how long it would take for future generations, 
for PCBs to leave her offspring if none of them were exposed in the 
future to PCBs. Six generations. This is a persistent toxic chemical 
that we need to extract from the bottoms of those areas of concern.
  Of the 43 areas of concern of the Great Lakes, 31 are wholly or 
partly within U.S. waters, and they are mostly harbors. More than 1.3 
million in cubic yards of contaminated sediments have been remediated 
over the past 3 years. We have just touched the top of the challenge, 
and remediation is nowhere near completed in any one of the areas of 
concern.
  The people of the Great Lakes community, 36 million of them, have 
lived with this problem that threatens their physical health, the 
health of their children, and impacts the entire region, both 
economically and in degradation of the Great Lakes environment.
  I was heartened when former President Clinton in fiscal 2000 included 
within the administration's budget a request for $50 million for 
remediation of contaminated sediments, and I had at the time introduced 
H.R. 3670 to authorize a program for cleanup of the Great Lakes areas 
of concern, but neither the bill nor the $50 million came to fruition. 
But the initiatives then stimulated further attention.
  I am very delighted to acknowledge the work of the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who is a colleague of ours on the Committee of 
Transportation and Infrastructure, whose scientific mind and 
appreciation of the challenges has brought considerable expertise and 
passion for cleaning up these waters to this issue, and I compliment 
the gentleman for introducing the bill today before us which will 
authorize $50 million annually for the Environmental Protection Agency 
to carry out projects to address sediment contamination in the Great 
Lakes areas of concern.

                              {time}  1500

  These are going to be prioritized projects. Priority will be given to 
those that actively address the contaminated sediments that have been 
identified in the remedial action plans for the areas of concern, 
projects that promise to implement innovative approaches, new 
technologies and new techniques to deal with contaminated sediment so 
as not to, as Chairman Duncan expressed concern, reintroduce 
contaminants into the water column and thereby reestablish the 
pollution or distribute it further.
  One of these innovative approaches is one that has been undertaken by 
the U.S. environmental research laboratory of EPA in Duluth, the 
University of Minnesota's Natural Resources Research Institute and the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the harbor of Duluth, using mining 
technologies which we in the iron ore mining country of my district use 
to beneficiate low-grade, nonmagnetic ores using a process that has a 
cost in the range of $2 to $3 a cubic yard versus $400 to $600 a cubic 
yard for other technologies, have successfully remediated large volumes 
of toxic-substance-containing sediment so that this cleansed sediment 
now can

[[Page 16055]]

be used in parks and reclaiming areas along the waterfront in Duluth 
for other environmentally friendly activities.
  These are the kinds of innovative approaches this legislation will 
support and stimulate in the future. The legislation before us also has 
clarifying language to ensure that the new program will have no effect 
on existing Federal and State authorities to address contaminated 
sites. The IJC report recently found that all sediment remediation 
completed to date has been funded as a result of enforcement action, or 
the threat of enforcement action, against polluters. While that still 
would remain, we would hope ideally that there would be a cooperative 
approach to cleanup. The aptly named ``orphan sites'' will be one of 
the targets of this legislation. I expect EPA and the States to 
continue to pursue and to hold accountable polluters responsible for 
contamination of all the areas of concern.
  Mr. Speaker, again I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Ehlers) for his persistence in pursuing this issue, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for his diligence in bringing the legislation 
forward, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for his participation, 
and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for his active support on 
our side as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources 
and Environment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the original author of the bill.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Great Lakes Legacy 
Act of 2002. First, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), 
the chairman of the subcommittee; and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), the ranking member of the full committee, for their kind 
comments and for the help that they have given me in getting this bill 
to this point, particularly not just in terms of process but also in 
substance, in the advice I have received.
  America is often called the land of plenty, especially when it comes 
to our natural resources. Few places on Earth are more blessed than we 
are, and the Great Lakes stand out among our many blessings. I am 
pleased to be the author of this legislation because it will protect 
this precious resource, our Great Lakes.
  Let me describe just how important the Great Lakes are, both to 
citizens within the Great Lakes basin and to the country as a whole. 
The Great Lakes constitute almost 20 percent of the Earth's surface 
fresh water and 95 percent of the surface fresh water in the United 
States. Let me repeat that: 95 percent of the surface fresh water in 
the United States. That means if you take all the waters of the United 
States, starting first with the rivers, the Hudson River and working 
west, the Ohio, the magnificent Mississippi, the Missouri, Arkansas, 
Colorado, Snake and Columbia, and you could name many more, add them 
all together and then put in all the other lakes in the United States 
and collect all that surface fresh water together in one spot, then you 
would still have to multiply that by almost 20 to equal the amount of 
water in the Great Lakes system. That is an incredible resource. It is 
an incredibly wonderful thing to have.
  These lakes provide us with fresh drinking water, habitat for 
wildlife, food from fisheries, recreation in and on the waterways, 
water for agriculture, and shipping lanes for economic growth. Millions 
of people live on the Great Lakes and millions more journey to the 
Great Lakes to vacation and enjoy all the splendors the lakes provide.
  However, longstanding pollution from contaminated river sediments 
continues to harm water quality in the Great Lakes and restricts our 
use of this valuable resource. As we heard from the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the fish have become contaminated with the 
toxic material, particularly the PCBs. The waterfowl that eat the fish 
have in turn become more contaminated. And then, of course, the humans 
who eat the fish and occasionally the waterfowl collect it all and 
become even more contaminated.
  After many years of dumping harmful, toxic substances into the 
waterways surrounding the Great Lakes and the lakes themselves, the 
pristine environment and waters of the Great Lakes have suffered. 
Cleanup projects have been implemented at only a portion of the so-
called areas of concern identified by the EPA as the worst of the 
contaminated sites. Let me just explain what these areas of concern 
are. That is kind of a euphemistic phrase in my mind. What it is 
describing is dirty, toxic, polluted sediments at the bottom of the 
rivers. This material is slowly leaching into the Great Lakes.
  Years ago we cleaned up our rivers on the surface. We cleaned up the 
obvious pollution, the things you could see floating down the river. 
Many of us recall the days when the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught 
fire and rats ran across the river, it was so contaminated. When I 
moved to Grand Rapids, Michigan, the Grand River, which runs right 
through the city, was polluted enough that you would not think of 
swimming in there; and you did not want to eat the fish in it. We have 
made progress in cleaning up the obvious pollution. Today, the Cuyahoga 
River is a reasonably clean river. The Grand River in Grand Rapids is 
so clean that people fish constantly and eat the fish without 
difficulty, and some people even swim in the river now.
  However, what we have not addressed is the problem of the sediments, 
what is at the bottom of the river. We have not addressed this for 
several reasons. First of all, we did not know how to address it, 
because if you simply dredge it, you stir up all the sediments and the 
contamination just flows down into the lake. So we needed to know more 
about how to do it. But also there was a hope that the toxic material 
would just stay there in the sediments and not move and we could just 
leave it there and ignore it. We have now found out that we cannot 
ignore it. It is steadily leaching into the Great Lakes, and we must 
stop it and we have to develop methods to do it.
  One of the biggest obstacles to completing a remedial action plan, or 
a cleanup plan, is the funding for it. Community groups, States, the 
EPA, and the Army Corps of Engineers have all committed to remediation 
efforts and have cited the lack of Federal funding as an impediment to 
cleaning up areas of concern in communities that have taken the 
initiative to improve the quality of their water. It is time that we 
helped them clean up these sites.
  Existing authorities and programs such as Superfund and other 
enforcement mechanisms have not provided the resources that are 
necessary to clean up contaminated sediments. We must provide the EPA 
administrator with authority and with authorized appropriations to 
carry out qualified projects in areas of concern that require cleanup 
and are not likely to suffer further contamination. We must take steps 
to monitor and clean up contaminated sediment and prevent further or 
renewed contamination. In addition, we must pursue research and 
development of innovative approaches and technology to help us learn 
how to remove contaminated sediment in the most environmentally safe 
and efficient manner. The Great Lakes Legacy Act helps accomplish these 
goals.
  Finally, this act is not only environmentally responsible; it is also 
fiscally responsible. The act provides leveraged funding and fosters 
partnerships between State and local authorities and private interests 
by requiring a 35 percent non-Federal cost share. In addition, non-
Federal sponsors are prevented from using Federal funds to displace 
previous expenditures for remediation programs. In other words, with a 
65-35 split, we will get a greater environmental bang for our Federal 
buck.
  The Great Lakes Legacy Act will greatly improve cleanup efforts in 
the Great Lakes communities which need it most and will allow 
unfettered, continued use of this precious natural resource. I thank 
the chairman and the

[[Page 16056]]

ranking member for their assistance. I appreciate their support of this 
bill.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers on our side, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me just close the debate by saying there is almost nothing that 
people take for granted as much as they do their water. Yet many people 
have said and have written that water may well be the oil of the 21st 
century. The importance of our water supply is going to grow and grow 
and grow with the passing years. Certainly the Great Lakes, as the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) just said, is a precious national 
resource. The Great Lakes contain, as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) has said, almost one-fifth of the world's fresh-water supply. 
The Great Lakes contain 95 percent of the U.S. surface fresh-water 
supply. The Great Lakes is a very, very important asset.
  This is a good bill. This is a very pro-environment bill. The lack of 
controversy should not mask or decrease or cover up the significance of 
this bill, the importance of it. I think this is one of the most 
significant clean-water bills that this Congress has ever passed. I 
urge all of my colleagues to support it.
  Let me say one other thing before I yield back my time. I just want 
to commend the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). The gentleman from Minnesota is 
certainly always one of the most active members of our committee and a 
real leader on all of these issues, and I thank him for his support of 
this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I thank the gentleman not only for his kind remarks but also for his 
very thoughtful summation. In his ever-judicious manner, he has summed 
up the issue before us and stated the case so well. I not only urge 
unanimous approval of the legislation in this body, but I also urge the 
other body to move expeditiously on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The Chair would remind all 
Members that they should refrain from urging the Senate to take a 
specific action.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Great Lakes 
Legacy Act, H.R. 1070.
  I would like to commend my colleague and friend from Michigan, 
Congressman Vern Ehlers for crafting this important legislation and for 
his diligence in gathering the appropriate support. As a cosponsor of 
the Great Lakes Legacy Act, I am extremely pleased that the Great Lakes 
region is one step closer to cleaning up toxic hot spots that lurk 
under the world's largest freshwater system.
  While globally there are 42 Areas of Concern (AOC), that is, areas 
that suffer from severe sediment contamination, 26 are located in the 
United States, and in my state of Michigan there are 14 designated 
AOCs. Contamination levels in these areas threaten human health, 
contribute to the loss of fish and wildlife habitat, restrict critical 
dredging activities, and lead to numerous beach closings. AOCs are 
among Michigan's most demanding environmental challenge.
  Like other environmental clean-up programs, full remediation of Great 
Lakes AOCs continues to be bogged down by a burdensome web of complex 
regulations, lack of necessary funding, and insufficient progress of 
research and development into new technologies. Recognizing these 
obstacles, the legislation we are considering today aims to solve the 
problems that plague successful clean-up efforts.
  In short, H.R. 1070 addresses the most costly and technical hurdles 
that face these hazardous hot spots. More specifically, this 
legislation authorizes funding for States, Indian tribes, regional 
agencies, and local governments for projects in AOCs to monitor or 
evaluate contaminated sediment and remediate contaminated sediments. It 
also targets funding for research and development of new technologies 
that aim to clean toxic sediments in the Great Lakes basin.
  My support for this legislation goes beyond my co-sponsorship of the 
measure. In March I introduced a resolution, House Resolution 361. 
H.Res. 361 calls on the House of Representatives to take swift action 
in helping to restore and protect Michigan's Great Lakes, the state's 
most precious natural resource. My bill highlights the environmental 
problems associated with AOCs and includes the goals set forth in the 
Great Lakes Legacy Act. In my view, the work done by my colleague from 
Michigan on this subject it too important for the Congress to let slip. 
My resolution affirms the importance of passing H.R. 1070 in an 
expeditious manner equal to its relevance for helping clean the world's 
largest source of freshwater.
  Let me make this point clear, the environmental problems that are 
caused by AOCs are not just a Michigan issue. Although most Areas of 
Concern in the United States are concentrated in Michigan, it is a 
national and international problem. Its risks for human health, aquatic 
populations, ecological habitats and wildlife are serious and impact 
states beyond Michigan. Therefore, it would be unwise for the Congress 
to ignore this issue or delay its consideration any further.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I am pleased to lend my full support for the 
Great Lakes Legacy Act and urge my colleagues to do the same. With that 
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the floor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 1070, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to amend 
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize the Administrator 
of the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out projects and 
conduct research for remediation of sediment contamination in areas of 
concern in the Great Lakes, and for other purposes.''.
   A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________