[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12145-12150]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, first I want to commend the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for restoring funding for renewable energy in 
this bill.
  With regard to contamination of Lake Michigan, we have had the Rock 
Gobie, the Fish Hook Flea, alewife, nuclear waste and PCBs. Lake 
Michigan has had enough. We killed Lake Erie in the 1960s and nearly 
killed Lake Michigan. The Great Lakes are home to half of the world's 
supply of fresh water. It is one of our Nation's greatest environmental 
treasures. I strongly support the Bonior-LaTourette bipartisan 
amendment and am totally committed to Lake Michigan's environment and 
urge Members to support this worthy goal.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I might point out that the purpose of this debate, what 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) is attempting to do, is to 
restrict the Corps of Engineers from granting any further permits for 
this venture.
  This is what the Corps of Engineers is all about. The Corps of 
Engineers is there to protect the environment, to make absolutely 
certain that everything with respect to any type of activity on the 
lake is in the best interest of the environment and of the American 
people and the area.
  So I would beg to differ that the permitting process on this is not 
taking place, because it is. They cannot do it without permits. If the 
gentleman's amendment is adopted, the Corps would be prevented from 
issuing the permits, resulting in a halting of further exploration.
  I might say that every day we hear in these 1-minutes the Members of 
the minority talking about the energy crisis, and this is an 
opportunity to do something about the energy crisis while not doing 
anything to harm the environment. So I would urge the Members to pay 
close attention to what this debate is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would join my Michigan Republican 
colleagues who have spoken in support of this amendment, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Hoekstra), also in support of the amendment.

[[Page 12146]]

  Some say that this is a safe process, slant drilling. Well, I have to 
say that I am not convinced that the science, in fact, will protect us. 
No one has ever suggested that the oil perhaps underneath the Great 
Lakes is an Arab oil field. It will not provide a lot of oil under 
anyone's estimation. So why should we take the risk?
  I grew up on the shores of Lake Michigan, and I can remember as a 
young boy in the 1960s and even into the 1970s there in fact had been 
an oil spill on the southern shore of Lake Michigan, and I will say 
virtually every day, every day in St. Joe, Benton Harbor, my hometown 
and along the southern shore of Lake Michigan, anyone that went to the 
beach got oil from the sand on themselves. I do not think there was a 
house along the street that did not have a little bottle of Mr. Clean 
on the kitchen step, which was the only stuff that would take that oil 
off our clothes, off our shoes, name it.
  That smell of Mr. Clean stays with me from this day, from those 
summer days of always getting oil on our feet.
  One of the first pieces of legislation I passed as a young Member of 
this House was oil-spill legislation. I remember almost a catastrophic 
event in Bay City, Michigan, that would have destroyed, I think, the 
ecosystem of the Great Lakes for decades, if not more than 100 years.
  This is a Great Lakes watershed area that is not like someplace else. 
When the oil is there, it stays there and it stays there for a long 
time.
  I support this amendment. It is bipartisan. For those of us that have 
districts along the Great Lakes, I think that all of us, I would hope, 
would support it. After all, we know our Great Lakes area better than 
just about anybody else.
  This is a wise amendment. I support the amendment. I would hope that 
my colleagues would also vote for this when we take it up tomorrow. I 
appreciate the bipartisanship that it certainly has, and I would just 
compliment my colleagues in support of this amendment to make sure 
that, in fact, we do not have oil spills throughout the Great Lakes.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I have a lot of good friends on both sides 
of the aisle that are addressing this issue, and I really get concerned 
and I struggle with this.
  Southern Illinois used to have one of the largest oil fields in the 
country 50 years ago, decades ago. Guess what? It was all pumped out. 
To benefit the United States of America, we drilled in southern 
Illinois. We still have some marginal wells there. They pump about two 
barrels a day. They are the little seesaw horses that one sees when 
they drive down the road.
  My cornfields and soybean fields are just as important as any 
lakefront beach property. Sometimes I think we get very selfish. We are 
in an energy crisis. Fuel is at an all-time high.
  We do not want to drill off the Great Lakes. We had a vote yesterday, 
where we do not want to drill off of Florida. Heavens, no, we do not 
want to go into ANWR. So my basic question is: Where do we go?
  I will say where we go. We are going to the Saudi Arabia sheiks. We 
are going to pony up our dollars. We are going to be held hostage by 
Saudi Arabia for our oil.
  I just do not understand. We can send people to the Moon. We can send 
people to Mars. We can go all over this world, and we cannot drill 
safely?
  So I ask us to bring a little common sense to this and to realize 
that we have some natural resources. We have places that expended our 
natural resources for the benefit of our country. Now it is time to 
make sure that we are energy self-sufficient, not reliant on foreign 
oil. If we want low-cost gasoline, we have to do a couple of things. We 
have to drill. We have to transport and we have to refine and, of 
course, we have to add ethanol.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the cosponsor of the amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Bonior) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, last week the Members of our body voted to send a 
message to the Bush administration that oil and water do not mix. The 
House voted overwhelmingly to stop offshore drilling off the coast of 
Florida by a vote of 247 to 164. Seventy Republicans joined 177 
Democrats in a rebuke to the White House drilling policy. Nonetheless, 
Vice President Cheney claims that drilling can be conducted without 
environmental damage. Where does the administration stop in its single-
minded desire to appease the oil and gas special interests? How many 
times do we have to send this message before the administration gets 
it?
  The Bonior-Stupak-Kaptur amendment is a message: hands-off the Great 
Lakes. The President and Vice President need to understand that the 
people of the Great Lakes region do not want drilling. In my State, our 
Republican Governor is opposed to drilling in the Great Lakes. So are 
both our Republican Senators and our congressional delegation.
  Lake Erie, Ohio's lake, is the shallowest of the Great Lakes and thus 
the most vulnerable to the administration's scheme. The Lake Erie 
shoreline, including the area in my congressional district, is a 
delicate ecosystem. Congressman Dingell and I are working on ways to 
protect it for generations into the future. To expose that fragile 
ecosystem to oil and gas drilling makes no sense. It is reckless 
policy. It is irresponsible. Our freshwater ecosystem is a powerful, 
competitive advantage for our economy and a priceless national and 
international resource that belongs to all the people, not to any 
special interest.
  For hundreds of years, even before the Northwest Territory was open, 
the Great Lakes have defined an entire region of our continent and the 
world. In the region, we see the Great Lakes as precious jewels. The 
administration sees another drilling platform. Please support the 
Bonior-Stupak-Kaptur amendment. Oil and water do not mix.

               [From the Anna Arbor News, June 19, 2001]

                  Cheney: Drilling Could Cause No Harm


 protesters charge slant drills under lakes won't reduce oil dependence

               (By Karessa E. Weir, News Staff Reporter)

       GENOA TOWNSHIP.--In his first visit to Michigan since 
     taking office, Vice President Dick Cheney said drilling under 
     the Great Lakes can be done without environmental damage.
       As environmentalists protested outside Lake Pointe Manor 
     banquet hall where he was speaking, Cheney said he supports 
     searching for new sources of fuel. Possibly, he said, that 
     could include the controversial plan to slant drill under the 
     lakes.
       ``The technology in my judgment is extraordinarily good,'' 
     Cheney said.
       ``I'd also like to remind everybody that we have a serious 
     problem in our dependence on foreign (oil) sources.''
       He added that to meet the country's electricity needs, 
     between 1,300 and 1,900 new generators would have to be built 
     for coal, gas and nuclear energy.
       ``Those are the three options for the foreseeable future,'' 
     he said. ``The attractive features of coal are that we've got 
     a lot of it . . . and it's cheap.''
       Cheney was at the banquet hall south of Howell attending a 
     $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser for Brighton Republican Mike 
     Rogers.
       Outside, Dan Farough, program director for the Sierra Club 
     and one of about 25 protesters, said continuing to put more 
     federal money into coal-burning endeavors will hurt Michigan 
     and the country without lowering reliance on imported oil.
       ``Michigan's lakes already are under an advisory for 
     mercury. Where does he think the mercury comes from? It comes 
     from the emissions of those dirty coal-fire plants,'' Farough 
     said. ``He is pushing drilling in Alaska and in the Great 
     Lakes but even if we kept all of what we could get, it would 
     only lower our imports by 2 percent.''
       Cheney, flanked by Rogers and Lt. Gov. Dick Posthumus, 
     spent the day in Michigan, first touring General Motors 
     Corp.'s Vehicle Emission Lab in Warren and then attending the 
     fund-raiser.
       Cheney also spoke to about 500 people who paid $25 each to 
     attend a rally at the banquet hall, where he touted the 
     passage of the ``largest tax cut in a generation'' and 
     efforts to reform Social Security and create a global missile 
     defense system.
       ``We will not accept that the U.S. is undefended from 
     ballistic missiles,'' Cheney said.
       Inside, the reception to Cheney was warmer.
       ``He's doing great,'' said Millie Geisert of Howell. ``He's 
     bringing integrity and morality back to our country.''

[[Page 12147]]

       In Warren, Cheney climbed into a fuel-cell vehicle and 
     munched on popcorn produced by the excess energy of a hybrid 
     truck. He said he was impressed by what he saw at the GM 
     facility.
       ``I am . . . optimistic. With American technology and 
     ingenuity there's no question we can solve any problems down 
     the road,'' Cheney said.
       The tour came a week after GM announced a 25-year 
     collaboration with General Hydrogen Corp., a pioneer in fuel-
     cell technology. GM hopes the partnership will accelerate the 
     development of fuel-cell vehicles, which create electricity 
     directly from a reaction between hydrogen and oxygen. The 
     vehicles emit only water vapor from their tailpipes.
       Rick Wagoner, GM's president and CEO, applauded the Bush 
     administration's energy plan.
       ``We believe the plan makes sense and believe the auto 
     industry can help implement it,'' Wagoner said.
       Rogers, who defeated state Sen. Dianne Byrum, D-Onondaga, 
     by 110 votes in November, garnered more than $350,000 for his 
     campaign through the Cheney visit. He faces his first re-
     election bid in 2002.
       The Associated Press contributed to this report.

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Bonior) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, in the 20th century the greatest resource issue was 
oil, but in the 21st century the greatest resource issue in the world 
will be water.
  The freshwater resources of the Great Lakes are as precious to the 
U.S. as oil is to the Middle East. It is our health. It is our wealth. 
It is our economic future. It is our environmental future. Clean water 
is a basic right in a democratic society. The oil companies should not 
be permitted to privatize the Great Lakes.
  The Bible tells a story of Esau, who sold his birthright for a mess 
of pottage. Let us not sell America's birthright to one of the greatest 
supplies of fresh water in the world for a mess of oily pottage in the 
false name of energy security.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the great State of Minnesota (Mr. Luther).

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Bonior), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), and the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for their outstanding leadership on this issue.
  I am from Minnesota, a State with a proud heritage of protecting our 
natural resources for future generations. In fact, in the late 1980s, 
Minnesota took part in enacting a multi-State ban on oil and gas 
drilling in the waters of the Great Lakes. Yet, today, discussion 
persists about drilling in this pristine area, particularly directional 
or slant drilling, is what is being discussed.
  Since 1979, the seven existing directionally drilled wells have 
produced enough energy to cover less than a half day of our Nation's 
consumption. Think about this: risking the Nation's largest supply of 
fresh water for a few hours of consumption.
  As a Nation, we must not fall back into the old way of doing things 
in this country. We will never get balance in our energy policies if we 
continue to debate drilling in our Nation's most pristine areas.
  I urge this Congress to have the vision to develop new approaches to 
energy policy in this country. I urge Members to consider the 
ramifications, before risking this resource for a few hours of energy 
consumption. Let us give our children and their children the splendor 
of the Great Lakes coastline.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from the State of Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strongly oppose drilling 
of any kind in the Great Lakes. Just visit Minnesota's North Shore and 
you will immediately know why. Lake Superior is a constant source of 
wonder for many of us in this country. It helped to shape our 
landscape, our climate, it supports our economy, and it enhances our 
quality of life.
  I oppose drilling not because we do not need to find additional 
energy resources. We do. But these lakes are just too valuable and too 
many families' lives would literally be at risk without fresh drinking 
water. It is simply not worth the risk.
  We are making progress in using energy more efficiently, reducing our 
reliance on coal and natural gas through energy efficiency and 
technology; but we must work hard to make bigger investments in current 
programs to do more.
  Investments do not always have to cost money either. We can and we 
must reduce our consumption by supporting wind, solar power and 
renewable fuels, like ethanol, which we produce in Minnesota.
  Future generations depend on us not to jeopardize today's greatest 
natural resources. An oil spill or any related disaster on the shores 
of the Great Lakes would impact fresh drinking water for 35 million 
people, and for what? For less than 1 day's worth of oil and natural 
gas.
  The Great Lakes are important to this Nation. They are important to 
my State. They are important to the families in this country. They have 
been crucial in our historical and economic development. Our 
communities continue to play a critical role in Minnesota, and water is 
a part of that.
  I urge my colleagues to protect today's drinking water for future 
generations. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Michigan for 
yielding me time. I especially want to thank the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur), and other colleagues from the Great Lakes region for 
consistently championing the preservation and protection of these 
precious lakes.
  I live on Lake Erie and appreciate the lake for its natural beauty. 
But Lake Erie is far more than a pretty backdrop. Ohioans rely on the 
lake for our region's economic well-being. We rely on Lake Erie to ship 
goods, to provide us with drinking water, to play host for recreational 
activities, and to attract tourists from all over the world.
  The Great Lakes contain 20 percent of all the fresh water in the 
world; and yet attempts are now being made to expand so-called 
directional drilling under the beds of the Great Lakes, jeopardizing 
the water, the shorelines, and the surrounding wetlands. These attempts 
are being made even though the existing oil and gas wells in operation 
under the Great Lakes have not produced enough oil and gas to fuel our 
domestic needs for even a single day.
  President Bush's solution for the country has been to drill early and 
drill often. Drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve, drill in 
the Gulf of Mexico, drill in the five Great Lakes. Instead of pursuing 
fossil fuels to the end of the Earth, Congress should author an energy 
policy that addresses both the immediate and long-term energy needs of 
our people.
  We should explore for additional courses of oil and gas, but we 
cannot drill our way out of dependence on foreign oil. Any strategy 
that calls for drilling in the Great Lakes, where there is more 
drinking water than any other place on Earth, fails even the most basic 
risk-reward analysis.
  Fossil fuels are a finite resource. Instead of risking despoiling of 
every piece of ground or water under which fossil fuels may reside, we 
must focus instead on using energy resources more efficiently, 
increasing our use of renewable fuels and encouraging conservation.
  Last week, this body supported an amendment that afforded protection 
to the coast of Florida from the potential ravages of oil and gas 
exploration. Today I ask my colleagues to afford the Great Lakes the 
same protection.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, 
and I congratulate him and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak)

[[Page 12148]]

and others on both sides of the aisle for sponsoring this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this should not be, in my opinion, a hard decision for 
us to make. The risk is too great, when you consider the damage a spill 
would cause to one of the world's environmental treasures. Twenty 
percent of the world's fresh water is contained in the Great Lakes. It 
is much too precious to risk for additional drilling. And what would 
that drilling get us? The existing 13 wells have produced enough over 
their lifetime to provide only approximately a quarter of 1 day's use 
of natural gas in this country, and only approximately 2 percent of 1 
day's use of petroleum. At what cost? I cannot imagine what type of 
drilling would have to occur to make a serious dent in Michigan's 
energy needs.
  Since receiving criticism for taking the hard road of production 
versus conservation, the Bush administration has tried to say nice 
things about conservation. But the facts are clear: the Bush budget 
proposed to cut the Department of Energy's renewable energy and 
efficiency programs by almost 30 percent. It cut innovative 
technologies like wind, solar, and hydroelectric research by 50 
percent. The American people clearly do not want to see a policy of 
drilling at all costs, and the people of Michigan do not want it 
either.
  I urge my colleagues to support this very excellent amendment.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleagues 
for having the tenacity and the guts to stand up and talk about no 
drilling in the Great Lakes.
  When I was a little girl studying about geography in the Cleveland 
public school system, people used to say to us, how do you remember the 
names of the Great Lakes? And they used to tell us to call it 
``HOMES,'' Huron, Ontario, Michigan, Erie, and Superior.
  So when I think about the Great Lakes, I think about it as home to 20 
percent of all the freshwater resources, home to all the species of 
fish and wildlife that live around those lakes, home to millions of 
Ohio residents, Michigan residents, Minnesota residents, Illinois 
residents, and the residents of all the 50 States.
  Now, I know that the Army Corps of Engineers holds the Great Lakes in 
the public trust, but I also know that this Congress is obligated to 
give direction and guidance to the Army Corps of Engineers. By this 
amendment, we can give them direction and guidance and say no direct 
drilling in the Great Lakes.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Michigan 
for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment to 
prohibit the Army Corps from issuing any permits to provide for 
directional drilling for either natural gas or oil on the Great Lakes.
  Mr. Chairman, I live on a great lake, Lake Michigan. My district 
borders the lake. I want to point out to the Members, especially those 
opposed, that Lake Michigan alone provides fresh clear drinking water 
to about 10 million residents of not only Wisconsin, but also Michigan 
and Illinois.
  I hear from the opponents saying we need more drilling and we need 
more drilling and we need more drilling, but I have yet to hear the 
word ``conservation.''
  I would like to point out to the Members that in the 22 years that 
drilling has occurred on the Great Lakes, a grand total of 439,000 
barrels of crude oil has been extracted. Well, if you would support us 
and increase the fuel efficiency for automobiles, light trucks, and 
SUVs by only a small amount, we could save 1 million barrels of crude 
per day in this country, obviating the need to go into fresh water 
areas like the Great Lakes, which, as has been said many times, has 20 
percent of the world's fresh water, and provide for drilling and 
looking for crude on that great body of water.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to take the time to thank the 
two gentlemen for offering this amendment. The greatest body of fresh 
water in the world is Lake Superior. Lake Michigan is certainly not far 
between. The only proper level of risk to such a pristine resource is 
zero risk. I congratulate the gentlemen for offering the amendments.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his comments and support on 
this.
  Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak), for his leadership on this and all the 
colleagues who have spoken on this issue.
  The State of Michigan is a very gorgeous State. We are talking about 
more than just Michigan here, we are talking about all the Great Lakes 
States and the connecting waterways that touch them.
  But I would like to focus in on my State for a second, if I could, 
because we have had a history, Mr. Chairman, of being ravaged. If you 
go back 300 years ago, John Jacob Astor and his ilk came into our State 
and they took the fur and the animals out of our Great Northwest. It 
took them about 5 years before they depleted some of the most precious 
resources we had, leaving extinct many of the most important mammals in 
our Northwest region.
  Then, of course, in the next century, after the pine had been 
exhausted in Maine, the lumbermen came into the State of Michigan, and 
built the country. At one point, the State of Michigan was 17/18ths 
trees. We had pine, white pine, as tall as some of the great redwoods 
out West today, reaching 200 feet in the air; and they were leveled. 
Thanks to Franklin Roosevelt and the CCC and the second growth policy 
of replanting during those 9 years during the Great Depression, the CCC 
and the 90,000 workers planted, Mr. Chairman, 465 million trees in our 
State.
  Then the Boston mineral magnates came in, and they took the iron and 
the copper that Houghton, Burke, and all the others discovered in our 
great State.
  I give you this history, because now the attack is on our water 
resources. And if you do not believe my word today, all you need to do 
is review the record in our State. We have 11,000 inland lakes. Every 
one of them is filled with mercury.
  I went and got my fishing license the other day. They gave me a 
little booklet that said if you are a pregnant woman or 15 years of age 
or under, you cannot eat a good amount of the fish in the inland lakes. 
The Governor of our State has issued permits to dump raw and 
undertreated sewage in our rivers and streams, to the point now where 
many of our beaches are closed in our State because of E. coli 
bacteria.

                              {time}  1800

  And now he is pursuing a policy of drilling in the Great Lakes, 
extending 30 more wells. We do not need that. Oil and water do not mix.
  I think it has been made very clear today that this is our most 
precious resource. A fifth of the fresh water on the planet is in our 
region, and we need to protect it. We need to protect it from 
diversion, we need to protect it from drilling, we need to protect it 
from being polluted with E. coli bacteria in our rivers and streams and 
closing our beaches; we need, as my colleague from Michigan (Mr. 
Stupak) has said on numerous occasions, a water policy for our State. 
We do not have it. Until we do, we need to do all we can to protect 
this most valuable resource.
  So I ask my colleagues, please, do not create this picture. For all 
of my colleagues who come up into our beautiful State, who travel up 
into Michigan, from the South, from the east coast, from the other 
parts of the Midwest who come to vacation, they do not come to see 
this, they come to swim in our lakes, they come to use our beautiful 
sand dunes, they come to fish in our waters, they come to rest on our 
beaches, and they come to drink our wonderful water.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues, thank you for your 
support

[[Page 12149]]

on this amendment. Vote for the amendment that has been offered, and 
make sure that we can save one of the most precious resources that God 
has given our planet.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my colleague 
from Michigan.
  This is a solution, though, that is looking for a problem. There is 
not one State in the Great Lake States that allows offshore drilling, 
not one. There is a moratorium on new angle drilling wells in Michigan. 
What are we doing? This is not about protecting the Great Lakes. This 
is not about talking about protecting the diversion of our water; not 
at all. What we have here is a direction that many in this Chamber I 
hope would disagree, including those who may have ambitions to hold 
office of Governor. I trust my Governor. I trust the Governors of the 
Great Lake States to be in charge of the water of the Great Lake 
States.
  As a matter of fact, underneath the Great Lakes today, there is about 
22,000 barrels of crude oil an hour flowing under the Great Lakes. 
There are 550 offshore wells in Canada. This bill addresses none of 
that. There are 5 million tons of oil bobbing around on the Great Lakes 
every year, 20 spills a year in our Great Lakes. This amendment does 
nothing to address any of those issues.
  This is not about protecting the Great Lakes; this is about the 
Federal Government going into the State of Michigan and telling the 
legislators there, you do not know what you are doing. Do we want to 
talk about our Great Lakes? You ought to live there in February. You 
ought to have to put up with the cold weather in the winters and the 
high degree of snow. Let us not get confused about what we are doing 
here.
  There are some great protections of our Great Lakes, and I trust 
those Governors, and I trust those legislators to do the right thing.
  I want to say it again, because this is very important, I heard it 10 
times tonight if I heard it once, that somebody is out there trying to 
build an oil rig in the Great Lakes, and they are going to do it now, 
and President Bush is leading the charge. There is not one State in the 
Great Lakes that allows offshore drilling, not one. There is a 
moratorium on directional drilling in the State of Michigan today. So 
what are we doing?
  Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that a bureaucrat in Washington whose 
only experience with the UP is a picture in the National Geographic is 
going to do anything for the protection of our shoreline, our Great 
Lakes. I want people who live there. The gentlewoman from Ohio talked 
about home, and that is how we learn the names of those Great Lakes. 
Why? Because we live there. We see the water, we see the pollution, we 
fought back and took back Lake Erie, and now we can eat the fish. We 
could not about 10 or 15 years ago. Why? Because the people of the 
Great Lake States stood up. It is nothing that Congress did. It is not 
us arguing this issue, it is the people around the Great Lakes. Why? 
Because those in California are taking care of California needs in 
their districts, and those legislators who are State-elected and 
Governors who are elected by all of the people of the Great Lake States 
are protecting our Great Lakes.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a passion for this stuff as well. We have a real 
difference of opinion on what we are doing here. Diversion of water. 
There is a bill in this House to empower Congress to decide what 
happens on diversion issues in the Great Lakes. The last I checked, 
Kansas and Arizona and New Mexico and California could use a bit extra 
water, and last I checked, there are more of them than there are of us. 
It has no business in this Chamber. It has all the business in the 
chambers in our State legislatures back home.
  This is a solution that is looking for a problem.
  There is this package of bills in, and I have done many of them, one 
to encourage the States to protect the diversion of that water, the 
States to do it. I have a bill in that continues the ban on offshore 
drilling in our Great Lakes and goes after the 550 wells currently in 
operation in Canada that are out in the water. Even the industry tells 
us they do not want to put a pipe in that fresh water. They do not want 
to do it. Anything that touches the water they do not want to be a part 
of. We ought to applaud them for it, and we ought to stand up with them 
today.
  But what the Federal Government can give us, they can take away. 
Pretty soon, maybe the faces of this Chamber will change, and maybe 
pretty soon the folks in this Chamber will decide that we want oil in 
the Great Lakes, and since many of us do not live there, and the 
bureaucracies of Washington, D.C., that do not get to visit there much 
are going to decide, maybe it is worth it.
  The thing that will protect us then, my good esteemed colleagues, is 
our State legislators and our Governors of those great States.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to urge this body to reject this amendment, to 
throw away all the rhetoric about how this is going to pollute the 
water and people are rushing to put platform drilling in the Great 
Lakes, and they cannot wait for that oil to gush through Lake Superior 
and Lake Michigan. That is just absolutely not true.
  What I would encourage the gentleman from Michigan to do is to work 
with us. Let us take a look at studying how good of shape those pipes 
are that are pumping those 22,000 gallons a minute under the Great 
Lakes today. Let us get together and tell Canada, get off the water. 
Shut down those rigs that are on the water pumping today. What are we 
going to do to make sure that those ships bobbing around out there 
carrying 5 million tons of oil are safe and do not have 20 spills on 
average a year?
  Does the gentleman want to do something for the Great Lakes? Let us 
be a partner with them and help them solve those problems. Let us not 
flex our muscles as the Federal Government and come in and tell those 
legislators, you really do not know what you are doing out here. We are 
here to help you.
  I used to be an FBI agent, and when I would walk into a local police 
station and tell them that, I did not get a warm welcome then, and I 
can tell you, Congress is not going to get a warm welcome in the State 
halls in Lansing.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an important issue. It is an extremely 
important issue. I grew up on a lake. I want that lake safe for my 
kids. I want them to go to Lake Michigan and be able to play in the 
water and not have to worry about turning green when they come home. I 
want them to be able to eat the fish in Lake Erie. Meaning no 
disrespect to this Chamber, I just came from the State legislature, and 
I have seen the good things that Congress can do, and I have seen the 
bad things that Congress can do, and I served with some very bright 
people in that State legislature. I served with a great Governor who 
understood that we had to protect our Great Lakes while we have a 
moratorium on drilling. I want those people empowered to make a 
difference for our Great Lakes.
  I would urge this body's strong rejection of the Federal Government 
encroaching into the business of Great Lake States.
  I applaud all of the Members for getting up here and talking about 
their passion for protecting our greatest natural resource there. Well, 
let us do it. Let us be a partner with the States. Talk to our State 
legislators, talk to our Governors. They will be with us. Talk to the 
people and ask them, who do they want to protect their Great Lakes? Is 
it the people that get up every morning and eat breakfast there and go 
off to work and send their kids off to school every day, 7 days a week; 
or is it a bureaucrat that they have never met in the halls of some 
bureaucracy over here who is going to make an arbitrary decision on how 
it ought to look; or is it a Member from California who stands up and 
passionately argues, maybe 40 or 50 years from now, that it is worth 
the risk to stick a pipe in fresh water?

[[Page 12150]]

  Stand up for our Great Lakes today. Stand up for the environment of 
Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Minnesota, all of those 
speakers' home States. Stand up for it by rejecting the Federal 
Government's role of encroaching on our ability back home to protect 
our greatest national resource. I would urge this body's rejection of 
the Bonior amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by my colleague Representative Bonior. I urge its passage by 
the House.
  There should not be any controversy over this issue. The Great Lakes 
should not be put at risk just so energy companies can extract a few 
weeks' supply of oil. It was with a certain amount of disbelief that I 
learned that Governor Engler and the Michigan Department of Natural 
Resources had proposed to lift a 1997 moratorium restricting new 
development of oil and gas drilling under the Great Lakes. I believe 
this proposal is short-sighted.
  The Great Lakes are a vital natural resource to Michigan. The Lakes 
are our State's crown jewels, and the heart of Michigan's multi-
billion-dollar tourist industry. In addition, the Great Lakes contain 
20 percent of the world's fresh water. Why would we ever choose to 
place all this at risk? The environmental damage from an oil spill 
would be catastrophic.
  The amendment before the House today is only common sense. It would 
bar any funds in this bill from being used to expand oil and gas 
drilling beneath the Great Lakes.
  Mr. Chairman, the Great Lakes are an invaluable resource to the 
people of Michigan and, indeed, the entire country. The Great Lakes are 
also part of the environmental legacy we will leave to our children and 
grandchildren. I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for the 
Bonior amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Shimkus) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2311) 
making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________