[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19490-19497]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             GREAT LAKES LEGACY REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend 
the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6460) to amend the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act to provide for the remediation of sediment 
contamination in areas of concern, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6460

       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 
     Reauthorization Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 118(a)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(a)(3)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (I) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (J) by striking the period and 
     inserting a semicolon; and

[[Page 19491]]

       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(K) `site characterization' means a process for 
     monitoring and evaluating the nature and extent of sediment 
     contamination in accordance with the Environmental Protection 
     Agency's guidance for the assessment of contaminated sediment 
     in an area of concern located wholly or partially within the 
     United States; and
       ``(L) `potentially responsible party' means an individual 
     or entity that may be liable under any Federal or State 
     authority that is being used or may be used to facilitate the 
     cleanup and protection of the Great Lakes.''.

     SEC. 3. REMEDIATION OF SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION IN AREAS OF 
                   CONCERN.

       (a) Eligible Projects.--Section 118(c)(12)(B)(ii) of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1268(c)(12)(B)(ii)) is amended by striking ``sediment'' and 
     inserting ``sediment, including activities to restore aquatic 
     habitat that are carried out in conjunction with a project 
     for the remediation of contaminated sediment''.
       (b) Limitations.--Section 118(c)(12)(D) of such Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1268(c)(12)(D)) is amended--
       (1) in the subparagraph heading by striking ``Limitation'' 
     and inserting ``Limitations'';
       (2) in clause (i) by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (3) in clause (ii) by striking the period and inserting a 
     semicolon; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) unless each non-Federal sponsor for the project has 
     entered into a written project agreement with the 
     Administrator under which the party agrees to carry out its 
     responsibilities and requirements for the project; or
       ``(iv) unless the Administrator provides assurance that the 
     Agency has conducted a reasonable inquiry to identify 
     potentially responsible parties connected with the site.''.
       (c) In-Kind Contributions.--Section 118(c)(12)(E)(ii) of 
     such Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(12)(E)(ii)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(ii) In-kind contributions.--

       ``(I) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of a 
     project carried out under this paragraph may include the 
     value of an in-kind contribution provided by a non-Federal 
     sponsor.
       ``(II) Credit.--A project agreement described in 
     subparagraph (D)(iii) may provide, with respect to a project, 
     that the Administrator shall credit toward the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the project the value of an in-kind 
     contribution made by the non-Federal sponsor, if the 
     Administrator determines that the material or service 
     provided as the in-kind contribution is integral to the 
     project.
       ``(III) Work performed before project agreement.--In any 
     case in which a non-Federal sponsor is to receive credit 
     under subclause (II) for the cost of work carried out by the 
     non-Federal sponsor and such work has not been carried out by 
     the non-Federal sponsor as of the date of enactment of this 
     subclause, the Administrator and the non-Federal sponsor 
     shall enter into an agreement under which the non-Federal 
     sponsor shall carry out such work, and only work carried out 
     following the execution of the agreement shall be eligible 
     for credit.
       ``(IV) Limitation.--Credit authorized under this clause for 
     a project carried out under this paragraph--

       ``(aa) shall not exceed the non-Federal share of the cost 
     of the project; and
       ``(bb) shall not exceed the actual and reasonable costs of 
     the materials and services provided by the non-Federal 
     sponsor, as determined by the Administrator.

       ``(V) Inclusion of certain contributions.--In this 
     subparagraph, the term `in-kind contribution' may include the 
     costs of planning (including data collection), design, 
     construction, and materials that are provided by the non-
     Federal sponsor for implementation of a project under this 
     paragraph.''.

       (d) Non-Federal Share.--Section 118(c)(12)(E) of such Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(12)(E)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating clauses (iii) and (iv) as clauses (iv) 
     and (v), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
       ``(iii) Treatment of credit between projects.--Any credit 
     provided under this subparagraph towards the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of a project carried out under this 
     paragraph may be applied towards the non-Federal share of the 
     cost of any other project carried out under this paragraph by 
     the same non-Federal sponsor for a site within the same area 
     of concern.''; and
       (3) in clause (iv) (as redesignated by paragraph (1) of 
     this subsection) by striking ``service'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``contribution''.
       (e) Site Characterization.--Section 118(c)(12)(F) of such 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(12)(F)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(F) Site characterization.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation with 
     any affected State or unit of local government, shall carry 
     out at Federal expense the site characterization of a project 
     under this paragraph for the remediation of contaminated 
     sediment.
       ``(ii) Limitation.--For purposes of clause (i), the 
     Administrator may carry out one site assessment per discrete 
     site within a project at Federal expense.''.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 118(c)(12)(H) 
     of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(12)(H)) is amended--
       (1) by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:
       ``(i) In general.--In addition to other amounts authorized 
     under this section, there is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this paragraph--

       ``(I) $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 
     2008; and
       ``(II) $150,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 
     2013.''; and

       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) Allocation of funds.--Not more than 20 percent of 
     the funds appropriated pursuant to clause (i)(II) for a 
     fiscal year may be used to carry out subparagraph (F).''.
       (g) Public Information Program.--Section 118(c)(13)(B) of 
     such Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(13)(B)) is amended by striking 
     ``2008'' and inserting ``2013''.

     SEC. 4. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

       Section 106(b)(1) of the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 (33 
     U.S.C. 1271a(b)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--In addition to amounts authorized under 
     other laws, there is authorized to be appropriated to carry 
     out this section--
       ``(A) $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 
     2008; and
       ``(B) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 
     2013.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Boozman) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to 
revise and extend their remarks and add any extraneous materials on 
H.R. 6460.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  H.R. 6460 reauthorizes appropriations, at increased levels, for 
sediment remediation purposes in the Great Lakes' areas of concern.
  The presence of these contaminated sediments, a toxic legacy of the 
industrialized past for the Great Lakes basin, have plagued its waters 
for decades. These sediments have contributed to over 90 percent of the 
near-shore waters of the lakes being unsafe for fishing, swimming and 
wildlife habitat.
  In 2002, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, under 
the leadership of our current chairman, Congressman Oberstar, and 
Congressman Vern Ehlers, took action to begin the healing process for 
the Great Lakes community.
  In that year, the Great Lakes Legacy Act was signed into law. The 
2002 Legacy Act was enacted to encourage greater cooperation and 
expedited clean-up of the areas of concern. To accomplish this goal, 
the Legacy Act targeted Federal resources toward the remediation of 
contaminated sediment within the 31 areas of concern located within the 
United States or shared with Canada.
  In many ways, the Legacy Act has been successful in laying the 
groundwork for addressing the areas of concern, but progress toward 
addressing and delisting these areas of concern has been very slow. Of 
the approximately 70 individual sites within the U.S. areas of concern, 
only four have been completely addressed. This is simply too slow, and 
the citizens of the Great Lakes basin demand that we take action to 
accelerate this process.
  It is my hope that this legislation will set that in motion. Over the 
past year, my subcommittee has investigated why progress has slowed and 
has received several recommendations for targeted changes to the Legacy 
Act from stakeholders closely related with clean-up projects. H.R. 6460 
encapsulates many of these recommendations, and it is intended to 
address the lessons learned as implementation of the Legacy Act program 
has matured.
  First, H.R. 6460 significantly increases the authorization of 
appropriations for sediment remediation projects in the areas of 
concern, from $50 million to $150 million annually through 2013. The 
committee strongly believes that the increase in overall authorization 
and appropriations for this program will accelerate the pace of clean-
up of the areas of concern. With full appropriation of the authorized 
amounts, it is our hope to complete the clean-up of all U.S. areas of 
concern within the next decade.

[[Page 19492]]

  Second, in order to facilitate better understanding of the types, 
nature and volume of toxic sediment at contaminated sites, H.R. 6460 
authorizes the administrator to carry out a site assessment of eligible 
projects at Federal expense.
  This authority should overcome two difficulties identified in the 
implementation of the Legacy Act, the lack of sufficient information on 
the extent of the contamination and the identification of potential 
non-Federal cost-share partners for subsequent phases of remediation 
projects.
  The language in H.R. 6460 attempts to replicate the successful model 
of the Corps of Engineers reconnaissance studies for Great Lakes 
sediment remediation projects. Again, this important change should 
accelerate the process of identifying the scope of contamination 
projects and quickly move projects from the conceptual stage to 
planning, design and construction phases.
  Third, H.R. 6460 authorizes Legacy Act funding to be utilized for the 
restoration of aquatic habitat, provided that this restoration activity 
is carried out in conjunction with a sediment clean-up project.
  Oftentimes, contaminated sediment has caused harm to neighboring 
aquatic habitat, and it is the presence of both contaminated sediment 
and the degraded aquatic habitat that results in sites being deemed as 
impaired. By allowing the simultaneous remediation of sediment, along 
with corresponding aquatic habitat, the Legacy Act should accelerate 
the process of delisting sites.
  Finally, H.R. 6460 includes language requiring the administrator to 
provide assurance that the Environmental Protection Agency has 
conducted a reasonable inquiry to identify parties that are potentially 
liable for sediment contamination before a site can proceed under the 
Legacy Act. The committee believes that this provision is consistent 
with the intent of the original Legacy Act, as well as the ``polluter 
pays'' principle. In addition, this provision should help maximize the 
leveraging potential of contributions from non-Federal sources through 
the identification and encouraged participation of responsible parties 
in remediation activities.
  While some have expressed concern that this provision will require 
additional time, it should neither present an opportunity to 
excessively delay clean-up projects, nor to divert additional sites to 
other Federal and State clean-up authorities. In addition, EPA is 
encouraged to coordinate this effort with State authorities and, where 
appropriate, utilize existing State efforts to identify responsible 
parties as a basis for its responsibilities under this Act.
  Again, let me congratulate Congressman Ehlers and Congressman 
Oberstar for moving this important legislation forward. It is my hope 
that this legislation will mark another turning point in our joint 
efforts to remediate the Great Lakes areas of concern, and that by the 
time this legislation is again ripe for reauthorization, we will be 
within reach of completing the task of remediating the toxic legacy of 
the Great Lakes' past.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Speaker, I want to first commend our colleague 
from Michigan, Dr. Vern Ehlers, for his years of work with stakeholders 
from the Great Lakes to advance the Great Lakes Legacy Act.
  The Great Lakes are a vital source 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 other recreational activities.
  But the industrialization and development of the Great Lakes Basin 
over the past 200 years has had an adverse impact on the Great Lakes. 
Although safe for drinking and swimming, in many places fish caught 
from the Great Lakes are not safe to eat.
  Lake sediments, contaminated from the history of industrialization 
and development in the region, are one of the primary causes of this 
problem. By treaty, the United States and Canada are developing clean-
up plans for the Great Lakes and for specific areas of concern. The 
Great Lakes Legacy Act, passed in 2002, has helped citizens restore the 
water quality of the Great Lakes by taking action to manage 
contaminated sediments and to prevent further contamination.
  The Great Lakes Legacy Act authorized the Environmental Protection 
Agency to carry out qualified sediment remediation projects and conduct 
research and development of innovative approaches, technologies and 
techniques for the remediation of contaminated sediment in the Great 
Lakes.
  Legacy Act funding must be matched with at least a 35 percent non-
Federal share, encouraging local investment. By encouraging cooperative 
efforts through public-private partnerships, the Great Lakes Legacy Act 
provided a better way to address the problem of contaminated sediments. 
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 more harm to 
the environment.
  Obviously, how to address contaminated sediments at each Great Lakes 
area of concern will be very much a site-specific decision.
  The Great Lakes Legacy Act does not try to presume any particular 
clean-up 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.
  This legislation is strongly supported by both environmental groups 
and business groups in the Great Lakes region. The Great Lakes Legacy 
Act reflects a consensus approach to addressing sediment contamination 
in the Great Lakes.
  While the authorization for the Great Lakes Legacy Act expires this 
year, I remain concerned over tripling the authorized level of 
spending. The Act has been funded at a level between $22 million and 
$35 million per year, far short of the current $50 million annual 
authorization. In addition, the bill authorizes that habitat 
restoration be included as one of the authorized purposes. 
Unfortunately, this may mean less clean-up of contaminated sediments in 
the Great Lakes.
  By expanding this program to cover other purposes, there will be less 
money for the primary purpose of getting pollution out of the water. 
Again, by all measures, the Great Lakes Legacy Act has been a 
successful program. There is some concern that we might delay ultimate 
clean-up by spending some of the Federal funds on activities other than 
sediment remediation.
  Again, I want to congratulate Dr. Ehlers so much for his hard work in 
this area. He has been a true champion in this and for his persistence 
in bringing it to the floor today.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I recognize Mr. 
Stupak from Michigan for 2 minutes.
  Mr. STUPAK. I thank the chairwoman for yielding me time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6460, the Great Lakes Legacy 
Reauthorization Act of 2008.
  Since coming to Congress, I have made it my mission to protect and 
promote one of the Nation's most precious resources, the Great Lakes. I 
am a cosponsor of the Great Lakes Legacy Act and can speak personally 
on the positive impact it has had on my district.
  Tannery Bay, located in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, suffered from 
pollution from byproducts left behind by the Northwestern Leather 
Company, which operated in the area from 1900 to 1958. On September, 
2007, the Environmental Protection Agency, through the Great Lakes 
Legacy Act program, completed remediation of the Tannery Bay industrial 
site. In total, the clean-up removed 880,000 pounds of chromium and 
more than 70 pounds of mercury from the bay and the wetland on Tannery 
Point.
  Success stories such as these demonstrate the need for continued 
support for the Great Lakes Legacy Act. The Environmental Protection 
Agency

[[Page 19493]]

has estimated that more than 850,000 cubic yards of contaminated 
sediment has been removed since 2004. However, an estimated 75 million 
cubic yards of contaminated sediment remain in the Great Lakes.
  This legislation would reauthorize the Great Lakes Legacy Act for an 
additional 5 years and triple the authorized funding levels for 
remediation in the Great Lakes up to $150 million per year.
  I strongly support H.R. 6460 and look forward to the continued 
success of this program.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also 
want to thank my colleague from Michigan for his kind words. He and I 
have worked on a number of Great Lakes issues together, and it has been 
a pleasure to work across the aisle on something that really benefits 
the people of this country.
  I am very pleased today that we are taking up this bill. It is 
another great day for the Great Lakes. Today we renew and expand upon 
one of the most effective Federal environmental cleanup programs ever, 
the Great Lakes Legacy Act.
  All of us have heard about Superfund and all of the tremendous cost 
overruns of that program. When we wrote this original Legacy Act some 
years ago, we made sure to keep the issues out of the courts, and make 
it a very efficient program, and that is exactly what has happened.
  The Great Lakes, we all know, comprise the largest source of fresh 
water in the world--20 percent of the earth's total and 95 percent of 
the surface fresh water in the United States. The Great Lakes also 
provide drinking water, transportation, and recreation to millions of 
people. Approximately 30 million people drink the water of the Great 
Lakes in the United States and Canada.
  However, the Great Lakes are endangered by contaminants from years of 
industrial pollution that have settled into the sediments of the 
tributaries, the rivers and streams, that flow into the lakes. These 
pollutants degrade the health of both humans and wildlife, and they 
disrupt the beneficial uses of the lakes. The longer we take to clean 
up these areas, the greater the likelihood that the sediment will be 
transported into the open waters of the Great Lakes, where cleanup is 
virtually impossible.
  To address this problem, I introduced the original Great Lakes Legacy 
Act in the 107th Congress. With bipartisan support, the Congress passed 
and the President signed this bill in 2002.
  The Great Lakes Legacy Act authorizes the EPA to clean up 
contaminated sediments in designated areas of concern in the Great 
Lakes. These areas of concern are designated by the EPA and are defined 
as any ecologically degraded geographic area that requires remediation. 
Currently, there are 43 areas of concern throughout the Great Lakes and 
31 of those are either wholly or partially located within U.S. waters.
  The Great Lakes Legacy Act has made tremendous progress in cleaning 
up contaminated areas. Of the 31 areas of concern in U.S. waters, four 
remediation projects have been completed, one project is underway, and 
six more are currently being monitored and evaluated. Since 2004, the 
EPA estimates that almost 1 million cubic yards of contaminated 
sediments have been removed from our Great Lakes tributaries. These 
sediments are saturated with toxic substances such as mercury, arsenic, 
chromium, cadmium, polychlorinates, better known as PCBs, and lead.
  However, more cleanup work remains. The U.S. Policy Committee for the 
Great Lakes has identified 75 remaining contaminated sites. The Great 
Lakes Legacy Act expires in just a few days. In order to ensure this 
vital cleanup continues, Congressman Jim Oberstar and I introduced this 
bill. The bill has 45 bipartisan cosponsors and passed the 
Transportation Infrastructure Committee by voice vote.
  In order to speed up efforts, this bill triples the authorized 
funding level from $50 million to $150 million per year. If fully 
appropriated, this has the potential to delist all of the U.S. areas of 
concern within the next decade. These funds will continue to be 
leveraged with a 35 percent non-Federal cost share with locals, 
businesses, environmental groups, and so forth.
  The bill also makes a limited number of changes to the original 
Legacy Act that were jointly recommended by involved parties, and will 
vastly improve the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. EHLERS. The toxic pollutants from our industrial past have 
plagued the Great Lakes region for far too long. By voting for the 
Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act, we can ensure that critical 
cleanup efforts in the Great Lakes continue.
  In closing, I want to thank Chairman Oberstar, Chairwoman Johnson, 
Ranking Member Mica and Ranking Member Boozman for all of their great 
work on this bill and their dedication to preserving our greatest fresh 
water resource.
  I also want to thank staff members Ryan Seiger, Ben Webster, John 
Anderson and Jon Pawlow, and also Ben Gielow on my staff. It has taken 
a lot of hard work, but it is a great bill and I am proud to present 
it. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady.
  As a cosponsor, I rise in support of H.R. 6460, the Great Lakes 
Legacy Reauthorization Act. This bill will reauthorize and expand a 
highly successful program designed to help address the issue of 
contamination in the Great Lakes. The lakes hold 20 percent of the 
world's fresh water and are an irreplaceable economic engine and 
drinking water source for our region.
  As a Member of Congress representing Ohio and particularly the 
Cleveland area, we pride ourselves on our access to that fresh water 
and we know it is not only important for today, but it is also part of 
our future as well. So the program created by the Great Lakes Legacy 
Act is focused on cleaning up areas of concern, sites that are known to 
be contaminated with toxic chemicals. These chemicals can cause damage 
to the entire ecosystem as well as damage to human health. For example, 
in the past research has linked consumption of Great Lakes fish by 
pregnant women to irreversible health problems in the child. So it 
becomes obvious that this program which will help to clean up 
contamination that remains in the Great Lakes will have an appreciable 
impact on improving human health and will also give people confidence 
in the fish that they consume from the Great Lakes.
  We can do better to protect our precious Great Lakes. This bill is an 
important step, and I urge my colleagues to support the Great Lakes 
Legacy Reauthorization Act.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, the Outboard Marine Corporation dumped tons 
of PCBs directly into Waukegan Harbor, polluting it. OMC's owner, 
George Soros, then looted the company and left.
  I joined with Congressman Ehlers and Congressman Emanuel to address 
that issue. To date we have been successful in cleaning five of 31 
areas of concerns. One more is underway, and seven additional harbors 
are under evaluation. Under this very program, more than a million 
pounds of polluted sediment have been removed.
  This bill before the House increases environmental remediation funds, 
and it speeds up the cleanup. It will help us to protect the Great 
Lakes, the source of drinking water for over 30 million Americans. I am 
particularly looking forward to Waukegan's cleanup. Shortly, we will 
announce the full Superfund cleanup of that harbor. Under Federal

[[Page 19494]]

law, the Federal Government will take the lead to do its duty to remove 
this threat to human health. Some locals don't want the cleanup of our 
harbor, but they will not be able to prevent this needed environmental 
remediation. And when complete, it will increase Lake County property 
values by over $800 million.
  We still have a few more days left to fund this program under the 
Great Lakes Legacy Act. I hope we do because then the cleanup will be 
even faster.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would like to 
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, when I was growing up near Lake Michigan 
in Chicago, we used to have dead fish on top of the water for the first 
30 feet. You had to run through the sand, past all of the dead fish, 
jump in the water, hold your breath, and go about 30 feet past the dead 
fish. Then Congress at that time passed the Clean Water Act. After 30-
plus years, there is no doubt when you look at all of the Great Lakes, 
like Lake Michigan in Chicago, the Clean Water Act has been a 
tremendous success in the Great Lakes region. Kids today swim all 
across the different lakes because of what this Congress and a 
President had done in the past.
  This act is important. It has been stated here on the floor, over 30 
million Americans get their daily drinking water from Lake Michigan, 
Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, Lake Superior, and Lake Huron. It is the 
largest body of fresh water in North America and represents a quarter 
of the world's fresh water. The water here for the future of America 
will be like the energy debates we are having today, and the Great 
Lakes and all of the States that border them are the equivalent of our 
Yellowstone Park, our Grand Canyon. This is our national treasure and 
we have treated it over the years sometimes like a pond that can just 
be dumped in.
  This act is a small step, but the right step. It is a bipartisan step 
to protect for a little over 30 million Americans their daily drinking 
water, to give the States and cities that border this area water and a 
sense of investment in their future.
  Brookings Institute last year did a study. They showed that for every 
dollar we invest, we get $2 back of economic activity here in the Great 
Lakes.
  This is the right thing to do. But we need to do the next step, the 
biggest step, build on the Clean Water Act of 30-plus years ago with a 
great American waterway.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield the gentleman an 
additional minute.
  Mr. EMANUEL. If we invest in our lakes and deal with the basic 
pollutants, that is invasive species, urban runoff and those types of 
pollution, we can deal with 93 percent of the problems affecting our 
lakes, our fresh water.
  This is the type of investment that will make sure that not only the 
regions and the States that border these lakes, but the entire United 
States, will preserve and invest in one of the most important natural 
resources in the coming days and years ahead, which is clean water. I 
am proud of this accomplishment and hope it builds momentum going 
forward for a Clean Water Act, act II, that invests like the last one 
of 30 years and takes us to the next generation of what we need to do 
to deal with the invasive species and deal with the urban runoff and 
deal with the industrial deposits left from industrial times. If we do 
those three things, we will have made a dramatic difference in Lake 
Erie, Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, Lake Huron and Lake Ontario. I am 
proud to be associated with this great bipartisan legislation.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I too want to congratulate Dr. 
Vern Ehlers of Michigan who has spent a great portion of his career in 
the United States Congress championing our Great Lakes. They are truly 
our Nation's jewel that we in the north don't think we get enough 
credit for helping protect. I know the Speaker understands exactly what 
I am talking about, being a part of that Great Lakes basin.

                              {time}  1700

  And now I think if you watch the speeches on the floor today, that 
the rest of America will see why we become so feisty about water 
diversion and invasive species and contaminants going into our Great 
Lakes, and why, in a bipartisan way, we stand on this floor today to 
celebrate what has been done, what this bill will do, and the future 
health of the Great Lakes for future Americans.
  I too grew up in the Great Lakes region and remember the warnings of 
no fishing and no wall eye fishing in Lake St. Claire when I was 
growing up, and how devastated we were to think that you couldn't even 
go out and put your line in the water and take that fish home without 
some horrible thing happening to you.
  Well, we've come a long way since then, and I think we've all gotten 
a lot smarter on how we protect these lakes. And it goes just beyond 
what is good for the Great Lakes Basin. Currently it provides water to 
42 million people in America. Nearly 30 percent of the Nation's gross 
domestic product is produced in the Great Lakes region.
  The Great Lakes States have 3.7 million registered recreational 
boats, a third of the Nation's total. The commercial sport and fishing 
industry is collectively valued at more than $4 billion annually. 
Unfortunately, years of industrial pollution have spread toxic 
sediments throughout the Great Lakes, and this bill directly confronts 
and cleans up those polluted and degraded areas.
  This act has had an enormous impact on the citizens of Michigan and 
their communities. In Michigan alone, hundreds of thousands of pounds 
of dangerous contaminants have already been removed and safely disposed 
of. Of the 31 areas of concern in U.S. waters, four projects have 
already been completed, one project is underway, and six are currently 
being monitored and evaluated. This program is extremely workable and 
has been named one of the most effective Federal clean-up programs we 
have.
  Since 2004, the EPA estimates that almost 1 million cubic yards of 
contaminated sediments have been removed from our Great Lakes 
tributaries. These sediments are filled with toxic substances such as 
mercury, arsenic, chromium, cadmium, polychlorinates (PCBs), and lead.
  This really stands as our legacy to the next generation of Americans 
who will enjoy the Great Lakes, and it is an investment in the health 
of those Great Lakes for a prosperous, clean future of the Great Lakes 
basin. We have to pass this Great Lakes Legacy Act and continue the 
investment in the Great Lakes so that future generations will 
experience the lakes as we know them today.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I continue to 
reserve.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. McCotter).
  Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, woven throughout the fabric of our lives 
in the Wolverine State, we in Michigan, the Midwest, and all of America 
must never take our Great Lakes for granted. Today, in a bipartisan 
moment that reflects what is both the best in us and is expected of us, 
we come together to ensure that we do not take them for granted.
  I come to this as someone whose parents took him on vacation with my 
brother up to Lake Superior to see its pristine natural beauty, to 
watch the glow of a Michigan sunset over Lake Michigan, to fish in Lake 
Erie and, in a moment of rare weakness on the part of my wife, I 
proposed to her on the shores of Lake Huron. I won't bring up whether 
she regrets it or not.
  I say this because, as we raise our own children and they share the 
same experiences with the natural beauty of the Great Lakes, we are 
honoring a commitment to future generations to

[[Page 19495]]

ensure that, for the time to come, our Great Lakes remain not only the 
boon of our quality of life and to the vibrancy of our economy, but 
they remain the most visible way we in Michigan and in the Midwest in 
America can teach our children that we honored our duty to defend those 
Great Lakes and pass them on for future generations.
  I thank you for the opportunity to be a part of this bipartisan 
legislation.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I do hail from the great State of Michigan, 
and I'm glad to say that my district borders one of the five Great 
Lakes, and I know the gentlelady from Wisconsin is equally as proud of 
our five Great Lakes as well.
  Madam Speaker, one of my favorite guys here in the House is certainly 
former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Joe Barton. And 
he has a statement that he says, ``Don't mess with Texas.''
  Well, in the Midwest we have a statement as well: ``Don't mess with 
the Great Lakes.'' It doesn't matter if you're a Republican or a 
Democrat, a Member from Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, New York, it doesn't matter. You do not mess with the 
Great Lakes.
  We have seen, over the years, some great improvement in terms of the 
quality of the water in Lake Michigan and all of the Great Lakes. It is 
not by accident. It is because of the actions of this Congress, 
Republicans and Democrats working together, to make sure that we have 
adequate resources not only to have identified the problem, but then to 
come back with the clean-up.
  Sadly, the Great Lakes Legacy Act, and I want to give great credit to 
my colleague, Dr. Ehlers from Grand Rapids, for pushing this along, it 
expires this year. So the work that we have done over the last number 
of years would have been for naught had it not been for the committee 
moving together, important legislation that otherwise would see this 
expire, literally within just a couple of weeks.
  My colleagues have talked about the tens of millions of Americans 
that live and rely on the Great Lakes for so many different needs. This 
bill authorizes the appropriation of $150 million each and every year 
to make sure that, in fact, we can continue to clean up the identified 
contaminated areas.
  Now let me just relate an area that we had big time on this House 
floor last year. We were going to see the expansion of a refinery in 
Indiana, and we made sure, as a delegation----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Can I inquire how much time we have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arkansas controls 3\1/2\ 
remaining minutes.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, we saw last year a major refinery that was 
going to be expanded in the Great Lakes, and it was going to add to the 
discharge into Lake Michigan. And every single member of the Great 
Lakes Caucus, Republican and Democrat, all around that circle, stepped 
in, and we passed a resolution on this House stopping that from 
happening. We are proud to say that that did not happen. And that means 
we're going to actually save money because we're not going to have to 
clean it up.
  But this is a bill that needs to happen. It has strong bipartisan 
support. I'm proud to say that we've had great progress over the last 
couple of years, but we're not done yet. This bill needs to happen. I 
commend the leadership on both sides of the aisle to make sure that it 
happens. And now we have to make sure that we work on the appropriators 
to make sure that the money continues to be there, to make sure, that, 
in fact, this remains a national treasure, because it is.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank our chairwoman, Eddie 
Bernice Johnson from Texas, for her leadership in this matter, for 
pushing this forward. Also, our chairman, Mr. Oberstar, who also has 
been very, very active on behalf of the Great Lakes, Ranking Member 
Mica, and again, as Mr. Ehlers mentioned earlier, which we probably 
don't mention enough, for our staffs that do a very, very good job of 
working hard and getting these very difficult things together so that 
we can bring them to the floor.
  I also want to congratulate Dr. Ehlers for his hard work. This has 
been something that he's worked so hard on for so many years, for such 
a long time. It really is great that we're able to bring it to the 
floor and vote on it.
  I look forward to coming back 5 years from now when we reauthorize 
again and hearing about, on both sides of the aisle, in a very 
bipartisan way, the people that live along the lake telling the story, 
telling the difference that this reauthorization has made and the 
tremendous improvement that we're going to make over the next 5 years.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in full 
support of the Great Lakes Legacy Act and express my appreciation to 
Mr. Oberstar, Dr. Ehlers, and to Mr. Boozman, who provided leadership 
on this bill.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today as a strong supporter and 
cosponsor of H.R. 6460, the Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act. I 
want to thank my friend and colleague from Michigan, Vern Ehlers, for 
sponsoring this bill as well as Chairman Oberstar for his leadership on 
the bill.
  The Great Lakes Legacy Act has been an incredibly successful program. 
In fact, the first success story from the Legacy Act is in Trenton, 
Michigan. Black Lagoon, as it had been named in the 1980s because of 
the oil and grease that had accumulated between the 1940s and the 
1970s, was renamed Ellias Cove just 1 year ago after the area was 
remediated. Without the Great Lakes Legacy Act, the $9.3 million 
cleanup would not have been possible.
  Madam Speaker, the Great Lakes are a national treasure. However, to 
date, they have not been treated as such. The Lakes have seen 
deterioration of water quality, the introduction of aquatic invasive 
species, and the contamination of toxic sediment, among other things. 
While the Great Lakes region has worked diligently over the past 
several decades to help clean up the Lakes, it is clear more must be 
done on the Federal level to implement the streamlined strategy already 
in place.
  All of us representing Great Lakes' States were hopeful when in 2004 
President Bush signed an executive order creating the Great Lakes 
Interagency Task Force. The task force spawned a coalition of Great 
Lakes' stakeholders, including local, State, and Federal Government 
groups, to implement a strategy over 5 years to protect and restore the 
Lakes. The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, as the group is known, 
which consists of over 1500 stakeholders, called for $20 billion in 
funding to implement its recommendations. Unfortunately, the 
administration's Interagency Task Force, in its annual report, 
recommended that the strategy be funded from existing programs. Madam 
Speaker, such a recommendation demonstrates how out of touch the Bush 
administration is when it comes to the resources and major efforts 
needed to restore the Great Lakes.
  So far, the Bush administration has paid quite a bit of lip service 
to restoring and protecting the Great Lakes, but that is where its 
commitment to the Lakes has ended. I am reminded of that commercial 
from the 1980s--``Where's the beef?'' We all know what it is going to 
restore and protect the Lakes--money. Unfortunately, the President has 
not put his money where his mouth is and made the Great Lakes a real 
priority. The Great Lakes continue to be plagued by toxic pollutants 
that contaminate the sediment which can cause health problems for both 
wildlife and humans. That is why the House must act to reauthorize the 
Great Lakes Legacy Act by passing H.R. 6460. This legislation triples 
authorized funding from $50 million to $150 million per year for the 
next 5 years for cleanup of the nearly 40 degraded sites within the 
Great Lakes basin identified as Areas of Concern. In addition, this 
bill reauthorizes a non-Federal 35 percent match of Federal dollars 
invested into restoration efforts as well as $5 billion over 5 years 
for development of more effective clean up technologies, saving money 
in the long-run.
  The past 8 years brought the Great Lakes little but empty promises 
from the Bush administration. Not only must we pass H.R. 6460 today, 
but we must also implement more of the recommendations of the Regional 
Strategy. I look forward to working with a new

[[Page 19496]]

President--hopefully one from the Great Lakes region--who understands 
the importance of the Lakes and will do more than pay them just lip 
service.
  Again, I ask my colleagues to join me in passing H.R. 6460.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6460, 
the Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008.
  This legislation is designed to address the toxic legacy of the Great 
Lakes' industrial past that is currently putting residents of the Great 
Lakes region in harms way. Residents of the region have long been 
waiting for the remediation of these contaminated sites and it is the 
responsibility of this Congress to ensure that they do not wait any 
longer.
  The history of the Great Lakes' region has largely been defined by 
the industrial successes of its past. For more than 2 centuries, the 
Lakes have provided residents of the region with sources of power and 
abundant natural resources, as well as transportation for the residents 
and manufactured goods of the basin. The Lakes have served as a 
catalyst that brought about growth and economic prosperity to not only 
the region, but also to the country as a whole.
  The growth and expansion of the region's commerce and economy, 
however, did not come about without negative consequences. Along with 
it came unrestrained pollution of the Great Lakes watershed. Sadly, for 
the most part, this contamination remains today and continues to affect 
the region's residents.
  In 2002, Congress enacted the Great Lakes Legacy Act to remediate 
contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes' areas of concern. This Act 
brought attention and awareness to the areas of concern, and also 
provided much needed funding for remediation sites.
  This Congress has been tasked with reauthorizing the Act, but has 
also been afforded the opportunity to address the shortfalls of the 
initial legislation. For instance, during a hearing before the 
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, many Members from the 
Great Lakes region expressed concern with the pace of cleanup of areas 
of concern.
  In our view, the delay is the result of an incomplete knowledge of 
the contamination present at sites within the areas of concern, as well 
as a lack of funding to address the 70 different contaminated sediment 
sites with the U.S. areas of concern.
  Madam Speaker, for far too long, residents of the Great Lakes region 
have been waiting for cleanup of these toxics sites.
  H.R. 6460, the Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008, will 
accelerate remediation of the areas of concern. It is my hope that this 
legislation will advance the pace of cleanup of contaminated sites in 
the Great Lakes and also ensure that parties responsible for the 
contamination are held liable.
  Madam Speaker, I applaud the efforts of my Committee colleague, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), for his unremitting work during 
the 107th Congress on the passage of the initial Great Lakes Legacy 
Act, as well as for his work on this important legislation that the 
House considers today.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 6460, the ``Great 
Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008''.
  I insert in the Record an exchange of letters between the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Science and 
Technology.

         House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and 
           Infrastructure,
                                Washington, DC, September 4, 2008.
     Hon. Bart Gordon,
     Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Gordon: I write to you regarding H.R. 6460, 
     the Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008.
       I appreciate your willingness to waive rights to further 
     consideration of H.R. 6460, notwithstanding the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Science and 
     Technology. Of course, this waiver does not prejudice any 
     further jurisdictional claims by your Committee over this or 
     similar legislation. Furthermore, I agree to support your 
     request for appointment of conferees from the Committee on 
     Science and Technology if a conference is held on this 
     matter.
       This exchange of letters will be placed in the Committee 
     Report on H.R. 6460 and inserted in the Congressional Record 
     as part of the consideration of this legislation in the 
     House. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have 
     worked regarding this matter and others between our 
     respective committees.
       I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass 
     this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                James L. Oberstar,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Science and 
           Technology,
                              Washington, D.C., September 4, 2008.
     Hon. James L. Oberstar,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Oberstar: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 6460, the Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008 
     This legislation was initially referred to both the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on 
     Science and Technology.
       H.R. 6460 was marked up by the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure on July 31, 2008. I recognize and 
     appreciate your desire to bring this legislation before the 
     House in an expeditious manner, and, accordingly, I will 
     waive further consideration of this bill in Committee. 
     However, agreeing to waive consideration of this bill should 
     not be construed as the Committee on Science and Technology 
     waiving its jurisdiction over H.R. 6460.
       Further, I request your support for the appointment of 
     Science and Technology Committee conferees during any House-
     Senate conference convened on this legislation. I also ask 
     that a copy of this letter and your response be placed in the 
     legislative report on H.R. 6460 and the Congressional Record 
     during consideration of this bill.
       I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass 
     this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Bart Gordon,
                                                         Chairman.

  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my 
colleagues from both sides of the aisle today in expressing my support 
for H.R. 6460, the Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008.
  Although progress has been reported in reducing the discharge of 
toxic and persistent chemicals into the Great Lakes, high 
concentrations of contaminants still remain at the bottom of a number 
of rivers and harbors in the region and continue to pose a risk to 
aquatic life, wildlife, and humans.
  Although many of these chemicals have been banned for a number of 
years, after decades of industrial and municipal discharges and urban 
agricultural runoff, they continue to plague our region's water and 
without continued and strong federal support, I am concerned they may 
remain long after many of us and our grandchildren are no longer.
  The areas targeted by the Legacy Act funding are plagued by chemicals 
that are known to cause adverse health effects in animals and humans, 
which do not break down easily, and which tend to persist in the 
environment and to accumulate in aquatic life, animals and human 
tissues.
  It is not a problem with an easy solution. But we know that the Great 
Lakes Legacy Act is part of the solution. Not only has it helped states 
in the region deal with this insidious threat but it also recognizes 
and affirms that the continuing protection of the Great Lakes is and 
must remain a national priority.
  Although it has never been funded at its authorized level of $50 
billion a year, the Legacy Act has contributed to a number of projects 
to remove polluted sentiments from these waters and protect the water 
quality of the Great Lakes as well as the millions of Americans who 
reside near, recreate in, or depend on the Lakes for their drinking 
water.
  One of the areas of concerns targeted by the Legacy Act is the 
Milwaukee Estuary in my district which includes the lower portions of 
several rivers (the Milwaukee River, Menomonee River, and Kinnickinnic 
Rivers) and the inner and outer areas of the Milwaukee harbor and 
nearshore waters of Lake Michigan.
  The rivers that flow through the area were for decades filled with 
toxic contaminants such as PCBs (polychlorinated 
biphenylshydrocarbons), PAHs (polychlorinated biphenyls and 
polyaromatic hydrocarbons), and industrial heavy metals.
  Recently, the EPA and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 
announced that they will soon begin a $22 million cleanup project to 
remove contaminated sediment from the Kinnickinnic River using Great 
Lakes Act funding ($14 million).
  The project would remove about 170,000 cubic yards of sediment 
contaminated with PCBs and PAHs and is expected to be completed in Late 
2009.
  The project's successful completion will mean the removal of about 
1,200 pounds of harmful PCBs and 13,000 pounds of PAHs and lead to the 
reduction of contaminated sediment being transported downstream to Lake 
Michigan. It will also improve the habitat for fish and wildlife that 
live in or near the river, while increasing recreational and commercial 
boating use of the river by the public, uses that have been strictly 
discouraged if not prohibited for a number of years.
  Even as this project moves forward in my district, I know that many 
more are needed and remain on the drawing board for possible action and 
funding.
  According to one estimate, seven projects being reviewed for possible 
funding under the

[[Page 19497]]

Legacy Act would have a projected cost of about $85 million. The Legacy 
Act received $35 million in FY 2008 and this grant program is currently 
authorized at $50 million.
  It is clear that the funding needs far outweigh the funding 
available. Given the high costs of these important projects, it is 
important that the federal government step up to the plate. This 
legislation before us does just that as it would triple the authorized 
levels of funding for Great Lakes Legacy Act programs.
  Great Lakes communities have long taken pride in protecting our 
region's greatest natural resources. That pride has been matched by 
financial commitment. A study earlier this year by the Great Lakes and 
Saint Lawrence Cities initiatives estimated that local governments in 
the U.S. and Canada invest over $15 billion annually to protect the 
Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basin ecosystem.
  It is important that the federal government continue to show its 
commitment to this region as well. The strong reauthorizing legislation 
before us today would help keep that commitment and help mitigate the 
risk to the Great Lakes posed by toxic pollutants.
  This program has and continues to enjoy strong support from elected 
officials in the Great Lakes states, the business community, 
environmental groups, and local communities affected by the legacy of 
contamination.
  As a cosponsor of this bill and a strong supporter of efforts to 
protect the Great Lakes, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this 
important bill.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Madam Speaker, as we all know, the Great 
Lakes have suffered as a result of years of industrial pollution that 
entered their waters. Through the Clean Water Act and other important 
measures we have begun the work necessary to reverse that trend.
  However, much work needs to be done. The 2007 State of the Great 
Lakes report recorded the status of the Great Lakes ecosystem as mixed. 
In other words, the ecosystem displays both good and degraded features. 
Stopping pollution from entering the water is one thing. Beginning the 
efforts to restore the ecosystem from the damage it incurred is 
another.
  Undoing that damage will require an extensive amount of work. One of 
the best tools in our arsenal to achieve that goal is the Great Lakes 
Legacy Act. This act, which authorizes funds to clean up contaminated 
sediment sites in U.S. Areas of Concern (AOCs), was spearheaded by my 
Great Lakes State colleague, Mr. Ehlers.
  The projects that are funded under this act are devoted to prevention 
and remediation of contaminated sediment. As a result of projects done 
under this act, nearly 800,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediments 
have been removed from AOCs. It is clear that this program has been 
successful and that is why it has been endorsed by numerous Great Lakes 
groups.
  This program has been very good for the Great Lakes and we need to 
build on those successes to meet the challenges. While some great work 
has been done so far, we have only seen one spot de-listed as an Area 
of Concern; 31 Areas of Concern remain in the U.S. alone and 5 more are 
split between the U.S. and Canada. For these areas to be dealt with, it 
will take an incredible investment at the Federal level.
  This legislation increases the authorization for this program up to 
$150 million annually. While I support that, I think we must also do 
our due diligence on the appropriations side of the ledger. Over the 
past few years, we seem to have settled at around the $30-35 million 
level, even though we are currently authorized at $50 million per year.
  We also need to make sure that there is sufficient participation at 
the State and local level to complement Federal efforts. With the 
economy in Michigan being what it is, State and local governments are 
barely able in many cases to perform their basic functions, let alone 
take on ambitious restoration projects. This bill makes some 
improvements which will help in meeting the non-Federal requirements.
  In closing, Madam Speaker, this has been a very successful program. I 
am glad to see that we are reauthorizing it at a higher level. I urge 
my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mrs. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I have no additional speakers, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6460, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________