Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007

FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 2006 AND 2007 -- (House of Representatives - July 20, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that we were unable to have a full hearing on this. It is most unfortunate that it is on the floor without a hearing.

There is nowhere in current law the word "vested" is used with the Governors. This is a radical change. This amendment is a radical change to current law. Thirty-five million people whose water source is not only for drinking but for working and their way of life is dependent upon a quality that has jointly been maintained in the Great Lakes.

[Begin Insert]

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. As a fellow Member of a Great Lakes state, I appreciate what a valuable resource the Great Lakes are to my state, our region, our country and the world.

I regret that this amendment does not share those sentiments. This amendment gives broad and unconditional authority over the management of the Great Lakes to the governors and premiers of the Great Lakes states and provinces. While I support the role these governors and premiers play in developing a common standard for water withdrawal, the authority granted by this resolution is too vast and the responsibility too great to cede to ten individuals.

I believe there is a better model for honoring the diverse interests of the 35 million people whose water, work, and way of life depend on the Great Lakes. Two weeks ago, in my home state of Minnesota, local, state, federal, tribal, and other diverse stakeholders came together to develop a Great Lakes Regional Collaborative Strategy. This is the kind of approach I believe is needed for the issues facing this large and complex ecosystem.

Instead, this amendment, on which no public hearings have been held, calls for a simplistic and unilateral approach. I have serious concerns with the implications of this amendment and urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment before us for consideration. Although the Gentleman from Michigan, Mr. ROGERS, is a capable Member whom I am pleased to call my friend, I believe that this approach to the very serious issue of Great Lakes water diversion is misguided.

Mr. Chairman, the language is this amendment is overly broad, governing more than just water diversion. In fact, it urges that "management authority" over the Great Lakes should "remain vested" with the eight Great Lakes States and Canada. This put Congress, for the very first time, on record as providing full and broad management to the states.

Now, I have the deepest respect and admiration for the Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm. I have the utmost confidence in her ability to protect Michigan greatest natural resources, the Great Lakes. However, there is so much more are issue here.

For example, this amendment gives our neighbors to the north, Canada, broad authority over all of the Great Lakes, including Lake Michigan, which lies completely within the United States. Second, this language puts at risk any national protection and restoration strategy that many of us from the Great Lakes states have been working on for several years now. One of the biggest issues facing the Great Lakes right now is invasion species. How can we deal with this issue if eight states and another Nation all have different policies, Mr. Chairman? Unfortunately, these pesky little critter do not now to stop at the border between Illinois and Michigan. What about sewage blending or oil and gas drilling? Should we have eight different standard for those also?

This also brings into questions who would be responsible for negotiating treaties and international agreements regarding the Great Lakes if not the federal government. Are we now designating that authority to individuals states? Mr. Chairman, this hardly seems wise or reasonable.

Mr. Chairman, we are in Michigan are blessed with the Great Lakes. We owe our tourism industry largely to the Great Lakes, where people come from around the country to recreate, hunt, fish and relax. This Lakes as a transportation system provided Michigan with the means to turn our great State into a manufacturing powerhouse.

We owe it to our children and grandchildren to ensure that we do our utmost to protect this national treasure. The best way we can do this is by defeating this unwise amendment.

[End Insert]

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov