[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 82 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1056-E1057]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                    GREAT LAKES INITIATIVE STATEMENT

                                 ______


                          HON. DAVID E. BONIOR

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                         Wednesday, May 17, 1995
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong concern 
over any attempts to further weaken the Great Lakes Initiative. I 
understand there are those who would still like to make States' 
participation voluntary. That would completely undermine one of the key 
initiatives that has been taken to improve water quality in the Great 
Lakes region. I would strongly oppose those efforts.
  The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee worked out a 
compromise on this issue. Like every compromise, it doesn't make 
everybody happy. I believe it is still too ambiguous. It's an open 
invitation to lawsuits. And will ultimately weaken the GLI. But it is a 
true compromise.
  Further efforts to weaken the GLI would go too far. It would turn the 
clock back. For those of us who live in the region, the Great Lakes 
have a profound effect on who we are as a people and how we live our 
lives.
  The Great Lakes provide our drinking water, they provide our largest 
recreational resource, they are tremendously important to our economy, 
and they shape our quality of life. They are our Yellowstone, our Grand 
Canyon, our Everglades. The Great Lakes ought to be protected like the 
national treasure they are. Unfortunately, a handful of polluter 
interests seem to have a burning desire to weaken the landmark Great 
Lakes Initiative, which will provide uniform water quality standards 
for all of the Great Lakes States. For that reason alone, I would 
oppose the current clean water bill.
  Beyond the GLI, however, events in Lake St. Clair taught many of us 
in Michigan how important our environment is for our quality of life 
and for our economy. In Michigan, clean water is jobs. Without clean 
water, we lose thousands of jobs in our State.
  Sport fishing in that lake alone is estimated at $140 million 
annually. Nonfishing boaters and beachgoers spend more than $1 billion 
each year on boats, accessories, marina slips, gas, restaurants and 
other items. Last year's ban on swimming cost the most popular beach in 
the Detroit area $500,000. This wasn't just a quality of life problem--
our economic benefits of the lake were destroyed last year.
  During most of the summer, profits at local marinas were down. Many 
local businesses were devastated. In just 2 months time, losses to 
local businesses ran into the millions of dollars. Our biggest concern 
is that it could happen again. In fact, with this type of legislation 
here before us today, it could happen anywhere and everywhere.
  In this bill, written by lobbyists for some of this country's most 
notorious polluters, we say to Americans--we don't care about the water 
you drink, we don't care about the pollution of your beaches, and we 
don't care about one of the most important recreational and economic 
resources you have.
  That's not common sense. We must protect our water--not polluter 
interests. We should be strengthening our standards--not weakening 
them. We should be debating ways to emulate model regulatory programs 
like the GLI--not gutting them. [[Page E1057]] 
  The GLI is a shining example of current regulatory approaches. It 
gives maximum flexibility to the States. In 1986, the Governors of all 
eight Great Lakes States entered into discussions with the EPA. They 
literally sat at the table and drafted model regulations to raise our 
water quality standards. On March 13 of this year, the EPA accepted the 
Governors' suggestions and issued a final rule on the Great Lakes 
Initiative.
  Any efforts to undo all of this hard work would be inconsistent with 
the long-term bipartisan effort to provide uniform water quality 
standards among Great Lakes States. It will say that those 9 years of 
negotiating and careful thought are merely voluntary guidelines.
  Under the GLI, a specific numeric criteria has been set to protect 
aquatic life, wildlife, and human health in our region. The GLI sets 
limits on PCB's, dioxin, DDT, benzene, and chlordane just to name a 
few. It offers guidance yes, but guidance is useless unless it is 
implemented.
  People in my State remember, and are suffering even today from PCB's. 
Mothers who ate a lot of fish from the lakes during pregnancy are 
seeing their infants developing at a slower rate than others. Higher 
rates of cancer have occurred in communities whose drinking water comes 
from the Great Lakes. Preliminary research indicates that PCB's and 
other pollutants may be linked with breast cancer in women. People want 
their water to be protected from toxins and pollutants.
  All the GLI is trying to do is to ensure that every State in the 
region has the same water quality standards. It simply levels the 
playing field for all eight States. We don't want one state 
undercutting another and driving our standards to lower and lower 
levels. If we make it voluntary, we undercut the whole purpose of the 
GLI. We will start the downward spiral of pollution and toxic 
contamination of our lakes all over again. For those of us near Lake 
St. Clair, last summer we got a reminder of what that could be like. We 
don't want to go back.
  We are talking about 95 percent of this Nation's fresh water. We are 
talking about lakes that provide 23 million people with their drinking 
water. We are talking about a multibillion dollar economic resource. We 
are talking about a national treasure.
  The American people thought we reached a consensus--that we should 
protect our water. We have made progress. In the Great Lakes region, 
the GLI was an important part of that progress. Let's not turn back the 
clock. Let's move forward to make our water cleaner and safer. I urge 
my colleagues to support clean water and to support the GLI.


                          ____________________