[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 20228-20234]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE DUMPING OF INDUSTRIAL 
                       WASTE INTO THE GREAT LAKES

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 187) expressing the sense of 
Congress regarding the dumping of industrial waste into the Great 
Lakes.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:

[[Page 20229]]



                            H. Con. Res. 187

       Whereas the Great Lakes are the largest surface freshwater 
     system on the planet;
       Whereas the Great Lakes account for 95 percent of the 
     United States' surface fresh water and about 21 percent of 
     the world's supply;
       Whereas the Great Lakes provide drinking water for more 
     than 30 million Americans;
       Whereas, on May 18, 2004, President George W. Bush said 
     ``the Great Lakes are a national treasure'';
       Whereas Congress has expressed its commitment to protecting 
     the Great Lakes from pollutants and contaminants through the 
     Clean Water Act and subsequent legislation;
       Whereas the United States Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA) and Environment Canada joined together in promulgating 
     the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy to eliminate the 
     presence of persistent toxic substances in the Great Lakes 
     basin;
       Whereas the ``mixing zones'' that dilute toxic chemicals 
     discharged into the Great Lakes system have been 
     controversial as a possible threat to humans, fish and 
     wildlife;
       Whereas the Great Lakes are plagued by pollutants such as 
     mercury, PCBs, ammonia, DDT, alkylated lead, 
     hexachlorobenzene, TCDD, toxaphene, and others;
       Whereas high amounts of ammonia can cause algae blooms that 
     threaten fish and water quality;
       Whereas the Indiana Department of Environmental Management 
     recently issued a permit to BP PLC to allow their facility in 
     Whiting, IN, to release 54 percent more ammonia and 35 
     percent more total suspended solids into Lake Michigan each 
     day;
       Whereas the BP Whiting facility will now be allowed to dump 
     an average of 1,584 pounds of ammonia and 4,925 pounds of 
     total suspended solids daily into Lake Michigan;
       Whereas the Great Lakes already face myriad challenges from 
     chemicals and pollutants, including a steep increase in fish 
     consumption warnings and record numbers of beach closures; 
     and
       Whereas Congress has a clear role in protecting the Great 
     Lakes as an entity that spans across State and international 
     boundaries: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring),  That it is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) Congress expresses its disapproval of the Indiana 
     Department of Environmental Management's issuance of a permit 
     allowing BP to increase their daily dumping of ammonia and 
     total suspended solids into Lake Michigan;
       (2) Congress urges the State of Indiana to reconsider 
     issuance of a permit allowing BP to increase their daily 
     dumping of ammonia and total suspended solids into Lake 
     Michigan;
       (3) Congress should take action to protect and restore the 
     Great Lakes;
       (4) the United States Environmental Protection Agency's 
     actions in the Great Lakes basin should be consistent with 
     the goal of preserving and restoring the Great Lakes; and
       (5) the United States Environmental Protection Agency 
     should not allow increased dumping of chemicals and 
     pollutants into the Great Lakes.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, we are gathered here to commemorate two extraordinary 
events. Forty years ago, the Cuyahoga River en route to Lake Erie 
caught fire and galvanized the attention of a Nation and the action of 
Congress to strengthen the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
resulting in the Clean Water Act of 1972.
  You would have thought that the Nation had learned its lesson with 
the Cuyahoga River incident and the other tragedies that befell the 
Great Lakes over the years; the invasion of lamprey eel and subsequent 
nonindigenous invasive species, and other tragedies, such as industrial 
dumping, that nearly resulted in the death of Lake Erie.
  But here we are gathered, 40 years later, to face a report from the 
Chicago Tribune that the regulators in the State of Indiana have given 
permission for BP, one of the world's largest energy companies, to 
release half more ammonia than they are and one-third more sludge into 
Lake Michigan each day.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) sprang to the defense of 
Lake Michigan, as have numerous of our colleagues that are gathered 
here with us today, and mobilized a resolution that we have under 
consideration today.
  Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Minnesota, who 
has been a leader on the Great Lakes issue, and also my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle, because this issue is not a Democratic or 
a Republican issue; it is an issue between right and wrong.
  British Petroleum, who is now seeking to expand their refinery 
capacity in Indiana, has run advertising campaigns all over the country 
that they are ``beyond petroleum.'' If they are allowed to dump more 
ammonia and mercury and other metals into the Great Lakes, BP's 
``beyond petroleum'' will become standard for ``big polluter.''
  I say that not just as a way to embarrass them, although I hope it 
accomplishes that goal. They have the capacity to live up to what they 
are advertising; that they are a company that is sensitive to the 
environment.
  Thirty-seven million Americans now get their daily drinking water 
from the Great Lakes. It is the largest body of fresh water in North 
America. It contains 20 percent of the world's freshwater supply. It is 
the economic heart of the Midwest.
  As my colleague Mr. Oberstar noted, the fire at the Cuyahoga River 
and on Lake Erie galvanized the country. When I was growing up, prior 
to that bill, we used to run past the dead fish, dive into Lake 
Michigan, and swim 30 or 40 feet past all the dead fish to pop up. The 
Clean Water Act improved dramatically the environmental standard of 
Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, Lake Superior, Lake Ontario and all the Great 
Lakes. The question here is, are we going to move forward, or are we 
going to go back?
  What is ironic about all of this is that this issue isn't about 
technology. They can do the refining to clean up and make sure that we 
don't dump ammonia and mercury and other environmental hazards into the 
lake. The question here is not technology or money. They are spending 
$3.8 billion to expand this facility, which is a good thing to do, 
because it will help on the energy supply.
  The question is they said they don't have the land mass to deal with 
it. They have 2.6 square miles there. If you look on the Google map, 
you can see the size of what they have. It is 1,600 acres. They have 
the land capacity to do this.
  Now, I compliment British Petroleum on one other issue. They brought 
Democrats and Republicans together on a single issue. They are a 
uniter, not a divider. Usually we are divided here on other issues, so 
I want to compliment BP for having brought Democrats and Republicans 
together in a unique act of bipartisanship realizing that Lake Michigan 
and other Great Lakes deserve our support.
  We have made great progress. The question before us is whether BP 
will live not only up to their advertising, but what this Congress has 
committed to do, and every Congress has committed to do for the last 30 
years, is that when it comes to our lakes, our drinking waters, whether 
we are going to go forward or backward.
  I would hope that BP would take this notion that what they are seeing 
today on the floor is the beginning of a pressure, and that they 
realize that the decision they make, they can do the right thing. I 
think every one of us knows that if they made a decision to expand 
their refinery with the environmental qualities, every one of us would 
put a resolution on the floor the next day praising them for that 
decision.
  So they have the choice: We will join them and say that they are 
right. They are a company that literally puts their money where their 
mouth is. Are they ``beyond petroleum,'' or will they be the company 
known as the ``big polluter''? They have a choice.
  I want to thank my colleague from Minnesota for having this 
resolution on the floor and taking the leadership and the time to 
commit to this.
  Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, this issue before us first came to my attention 9 days 
ago in a July 15 story published in the Chicago Tribune entitled ``BP 
Gets Break

[[Page 20230]]

 Dumping in Lake.'' Shortly after that I went into a meeting which Mr. 
Oberstar was chairing, and I alerted him to the issue, because I know 
he loves the Great Lakes as much as I do.
  That article highlighted the wastewater discharge permit granted by 
the State of Indiana to British Petroleum for its refinery facility in 
Whiting, Indiana, on the shores of Lake Michigan. The new permit allows 
BP to discharge an average of 1,584 pounds of ammonia per day, up from 
1,030 pounds per day, a 54 percent increase above the old limit. The 
new permit also allows BP to discharge 4,925 pounds of total suspended 
solids per day, up from 3,646 pounds per day, a 35 percent increase. 
This level of discharge is extremely disconcerting to me and the entire 
Great Lakes region.
  Let me provide a little background information. The BP facility in 
Whiting was built in 1889 by John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil 
Company. Today, it is the fourth largest refinery in the country. It 
employs 1,700 people and supports another 1,500 contract workers in 
producing gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. It is a major, major refining 
operation not just in northwest Indiana, but, indeed, the entire 
Midwest.
  BP plans to spend more than $3 billion in upgrading and expanding the 
facility so it can process more heavy crude from Canada. I support the 
expansion of refinery capacity to help address our immediate and 
pressing need for fuel in the Midwest, but I know that the switch to 
refining more Canadian crude will inevitably lead to more waste from 
the facility.
  No one is accusing BP of subverting the regulatory process. The 
permit went through the regular public comment period, although I must 
say that the time between the notice and the final issuance seems to me 
a very short period for a project of this magnitude. According to the 
Indiana Department of Environmental Management, the permit was issued 
in full accordance and compliance with State and Federal environmental 
laws. If that is true, and I don't doubt that it is, there is something 
wrong with State and Federal environmental laws.
  The benefits of this project should not come at the expense of our 
most precious natural resource. The Great Lakes are the world's largest 
freshwater system and serve as a source of drinking water, food, jobs 
and recreation for more than 40 million Americans. It is critical that 
we enhance our restoration efforts for this vital resource. It is 
already polluted enough, and we certainly do not want to degrade the 
condition of the lakes even further.
  All the communities and States around the lakes have tried to improve 
their practices. My own town, my city of Grand Rapids, Michigan, has 
spent several hundred million dollars improving its wastewater 
treatment system to help clean up the lake, and that is the story in 
many cities around the lakes.
  President Bush 2 years ago issued an Executive Order calling together 
the mayors and the Governors of the Great Lakes regions, the Members of 
Congress, the environmentalists and the tribes to work together to 
develop a solution to the pollution in the lakes. Over 1,500 
policymakers and stakeholders came together in a collaborative process 
to develop a long-term strategic action plan for protecting and 
restoring the environmental health of the Great Lakes. I was proud to 
participate in that process as the congressional representative, and I 
have a bill in process which will make the collaborative's 
recommendations come into law.
  The discharge of harmful pollutants that is proposed by BP and 
permitted by the State of Indiana is totally inconsistent with the 
goals of Great Lakes restoration. Ammonia and TSS, suspended solids, 
promote algae blooms that can suffocate fish, destroy fish habitat, 
deprive plants of sunlight and oxygen, and trigger beach closings. We 
cannot allow for more of these kinds of problems in the lake.
  For these reasons, Madam Speaker, I would urge both the EPA and the 
State of Indiana to take a second look at this permit and find a better 
means of disposal. I also urge BP to look at other means of disposal. 
Certainly if they can afford to pipe crude oil from Canada thousands of 
miles through pipelines, they certainly should be able to find a better 
solution for disposal of wastes.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan resolution.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the distinguished chairman of the Energy and 
Water Appropriations Subcommittee.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
rise in support of the resolution.
  Ever since the author Rachel Carson ushered in the advent of 
environmental awareness with her book ``The Silent Spring,'' Americans 
have understood that we owe it to future generations to be good 
stewards of the planet and the environment. As in the case with every 
problem, we should work toward a solution not by asking how little must 
be done, but rather by asking what is the right thing to do?
  As the chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, 
I feel I have a unique perspective on the issues contained in this 
resolution.

                              {time}  1045

  As chairman of the Energy Subcommittee on Appropriations, I respect 
BP's foresight. Their investment of a half billion dollars, in 
collaboration with the University of California-Berkeley and the 
University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana to increase energy production 
through renewable biofuels is a worthwhile goal. These fuels have the 
potential to increase our domestic fuel capabilities and strengthen our 
national security by reducing our dependency on foreign oil.
  As chairman of the Water Subcommittee on Appropriations, I also fully 
appreciate the treasure that is the Great Lakes system, including the 
potable, clean fresh drinking water, and its venues for recreation and 
refreshment. I also appreciate that the Federal Government has made a 
commitment to the Great Lakes States over several generations to 
improve water quality and reduce pollution.
  It is my hope that, while it appears BP has the legal authority to 
potentially increase discharged materials into Lake Michigan, they will 
act responsibly, refrain from doing so, and reconsider their permit.
  Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 187.
  Madam Speaker, throughout my career as a public servant, a principal 
advocacy of mine has always been to improve the quality of our precious 
Great Lakes, our magnificent Great Lakes, which are actually 20 percent 
of the fresh water supply of the entire planet. That is one-fifth of 
all of the fresh water in the entire world.
  We have seen efforts at the local and State and Federal levels to 
prevent industrial pollution, to stop water diversion, to eliminate 
sewage discharges and to fight invasive species so that future 
generations can enjoy the beauty of our magnificent Great Lakes.
  In fact, this House has passed many important bills that have helped 
make those goals a reality. And though we have made tremendous 
progress, there are still so many challenges facing the Great Lakes. We 
need to continue to fight to protect the Great Lakes.
  Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, it seems not everyone shares this 
vision. As has been discussed, the Indiana Department of Environmental 
Management recently issued a wastewater permit to a British Petroleum 
refinery on the coast of Lake Michigan which will actually allow BP to 
increase the amount of ammonia and total suspended solids discharged 
into Lake Michigan. This is crazy. This is nuts.
  This permit flies in the face of everything that we in this body, and 
numerous individuals in groups outside of this body, have attempted to 
achieve. Instead of increasing our efforts in creating more stringent 
regulations, this

[[Page 20231]]

permit marks a huge step backwards in our efforts to keep our Great 
Lakes clean.
  And although BP might argue that they have followed the law in this 
process to secure their permit, I would say it does not make their 
actions right.
  The resolution before us expresses Congress's disapproval of this 
permit and urges the EPA to reject increased dumping of chemicals and 
pollutants into our Great Lakes. This Congress must speak up for the 
Great Lakes. We owe it to our children, to our grandchildren, and for 
every generation that will follow. I urge my colleagues to support this 
resolution.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this 
resolution and in support of protecting one of America's most critical 
natural treasures, the Great Lakes. I thank Chairman Oberstar, Mr. 
Emanuel, and Mr. Ehlers for their work on this issue in helping to 
protect the lakes.
  Through Federal regulations and State and local cooperation, we have 
made great strides in cleaning up the Great Lakes. Right now we cannot 
step back. I am deeply troubled by BP's plan to significantly increase 
their dumping of ammonia and other pollutants into Lake Michigan. All 
of these pollutants can cause harm to the environment and to public 
health. Over 40 million people in the Chicago area get their drinking 
water from Lake Michigan, and it is critical to tourism, recreation and 
the fishing industry. We should not be doing less to protect the Great 
Lakes. We should be doing more, such as passing legislation I 
introduced with Mark Kirk to stop municipalities from dumping waste 
into the lakes.
  While it is good to increase our national energy security and to 
create new jobs, this cannot come at the expense of public health and 
the quality of our environment. That is why BP must do everything 
possible to lower pollution emissions into Lake Michigan. BP talks the 
talk about protecting the environment. It is time for BP to walk the 
walk and protect the lake. The step forward today is to pass this 
resolution and send BP this message.
  Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, this issue extends throughout the entire 
United States in terms of its concern, and I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) as someone who lives 
very near this particular facility.
  Mr. KIRK. I thank the gentleman and I want to thank Congressman 
Emanuel and Congressman Ehlers for bringing this resolution to the 
floor.
  Ten days ago, Michael Hawthorne of the Chicago Tribune broke the 
story that British Petroleum planned to increase its dumping into the 
source of our drinking water, Lake Michigan. It was a stunning mistake. 
BP, a pretend friend of the environment, should have not done this.
  Tony Hayward, BP's chief, claims he is ``Beyond Petroleum'' when he 
plans to actually become a ``Bad Polluter.''
  Governor Daniels of Indiana also made a big mistake. His State EPA 
failed in their duty to protect the public and authorized the first new 
dumping in the lake in a decade. Now 19 Republicans and Democrats 
joined with Congressman Lipinski and me calling on the U.S. EPA to pull 
this permit; and 2,700 of my constituents signed the petition 
condemning BP's plan to increase its dumping in the lake.
  Congressman Lipinski and I authored bipartisan legislation moving us 
to a time in which all dumping in the Great Lakes ends. Twenty-four 
billion gallons of raw sewage are dumped into the lake each year, and 
12 billion gallons of raw sewage are dumped in the Great Lakes by the 
city of Detroit alone. But that is current dumping which should 
definitely end. We cannot allow new dumping by BP.
  Later today we will meet with the head of BP North America, and given 
the legislative tsunami we are preparing, we should simply be 
discussing BP's terms of surrender on their lake-dumping plan. BP, 
millions spent in the ``Beyond Petroleum'' campaign, but we know it 
stands for ``Bad Polluter.'' Hopefully, BP will back down and be a 
better partner in protecting Lake Michigan.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me.
  Let me just give you a few numbers here: 30 million, that's the 
number of people who depend on the Great Lakes for our drinking water; 
20 percent, that's the percent of fresh surface water on the entire 
planet that is represented by the Great Lakes; $6 billion, that's the 
amount of money that BP earned in the last quarter. BP is one of the 
most profitable companies on the entire planet, and a company that has 
spent a considerable amount of money promoting its green image.
  I want to quote to you from a Chicago Tribune Voice of the People 
article that was written by a BP Whiting Refinery individual, and he 
talks about, he minimizes the problem. He says: ``Of the 23 substances 
regulated in the permit, ammonia and total suspended solids are the 
only two limits that will increase when compared to the current 
permit.'' No problem, only two out of 23.
  And later, consistent with BP's bragging about its environmental 
excellence says about itself: ``This is just one of the ways we have 
demonstrated our focus on continual improvement in environmental 
performance. Our commitment to continuous improvement will carry on as 
we modernize the refinery.'' Meantime, increasing the amount of ammonia 
and the amount of total suspended solid waste.
  What's the consequence of those emissions? The health consequences 
can't be understated. Dumping ammonia represents a direct threat to the 
health of millions of Americans living in the Great Lakes region. For 
example, ammonia in the water promotes algae blooms that can kill fish 
and trigger beach closings. So here is another number: 1,585 pounds of 
ammonia, a 54-percent increase every day, every day into our precious 
Lake Michigan. And 4,925 pounds of liquid waste consisting of suspended 
particulate matter, a 35-percent increase every day into Lake Michigan.
  In addition to putting our health at risk, the decision to allow BP 
to increase their dumpage also puts the lake ecosystem in jeopardy. 
Increasing the amount of liquid waste consisting of suspended 
particulate matter dumped into the lake each day endangers the marine 
life by making the water cloudy, thereby making it more difficult for 
fish to find ample amounts of oxygen.
  This is a big deal. This is a serious problem, and it is incredible 
that the Environmental Protection Agency and BP and the State of 
Indiana would allow it. It is an outrage. We can stop it.
  Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another member of the 
Fighting Illini, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
  Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, when you come here and represent the Great 
Lakes and you meet Representatives from all across the country, you 
meet folks from the east coast and the west coast, you begin having 
conversations about the water that surrounds their districts. I talk to 
Californians and people from Oregon and South Carolina, and they are 
very proud of their coastlines, as they should be. And as a Member who 
represents a Western district, you try and describe the Great Lakes to 
them, and it is really difficult to describe. And then you have someone 
come and visit and they look at Lake Michigan and they look at Lake 
Superior and Huron and Ontario and Lake Erie, and it takes their breath 
away because these are beautiful bodies of water.
  Lake Michigan is so big and so significant that my almost entire 
congressional district gets its drinking water from Lake Michigan. So 
you can imagine the sense of pause and outrage and deep concern that 
many of us felt when we heard of this plan that BP had that was 
approved by the State of Indiana to move forward and dump these 
pollutants into Lake Michigan.
  Madam Speaker, my district counts on the fact that drinking water is

[[Page 20232]]

going to be as pure and clear as this cup when they open up the tap, 
and I think it is incumbent upon us on both sides of the aisle to stand 
today and to say this will not stand.
  Madam Speaker, my predecessor, Congressman Hyde, had a great line. He 
said there is one thing worse than gridlock when it comes to 
government, and that is the greased chute of decision-making. Our role 
in Congress today is to stand up and to suggest and demand of the 
Environmental Protection Agency and demand of the State of Indiana that 
they rescind this order. With that, I am pleased to support the 
resolution.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Donnelly).

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. DONNELLY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my deep concern 
regarding the Indiana Department of Environmental Management's decision 
to permit significant increases in allowable discharges of ammonia and 
total suspended solids into Lake Michigan, and I fully support H. Con. 
Res. 187.
  For communities in my district, and I suspect most Americans, Lake 
Michigan is a national treasure. Not only does the lake serve as a 
source of drinking water and natural habitat and recreation, it is one 
of the greatest reminders of our responsibility to be good stewards of 
the environment.
  One component in our strategy to achieve independence from foreign 
oil will need to be increased refining capacity here at home. I would 
like to support this project, but first, BP can do better and must do 
better. Their corporate image is marketed worldwide as an energy 
company seriously committed to providing modern energy solutions that 
value our environment; however, BP's wrong-headed decision here to 
increase discharges in a lake and in a region trying to overcome 
decades of environmental neglect will not stand.
  I do not believe the health of our environment and the growth of our 
economy are mutually exclusive goals. My congressional district in 
Indiana features miles of beautiful Lake Michigan shoreline, Porter 
County, Michigan City, Long Beach. I note the next speaker, Congressman 
Upton, whose district is next to mine, he has beautiful Lake Michigan 
shoreline and has done a great job protecting that resource, and I know 
he will do that again today.
  The goals of energy independence and protection in the Great Lakes 
are not mutually exclusive. BP just has to conclude that they have to 
do this in the right way, and the right way is not to damage Lake 
Michigan.
  Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a 
colleague from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I commend the remarks by my colleagues from 
every State that adjoins Lake Michigan, whether they be from Minnesota, 
Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and obviously in my State, the great 
State of Michigan.
  My district does abut Lake Michigan, and I'm a member of the Great 
Lakes Caucus, with a long record of protecting our Great Lakes body. 
The Great Lakes are the world's largest body of fresh water, and our 
job here is to be good stewards. We know that, and we were stunned by 
the announcement that was made just a little bit more than a week ago 
with regard to the new refinery that's being built and expanded in 
Indiana.
  Tremendous efforts have been made in this region to protect the Great 
Lakes, but we see it in other places around the country, the Chesapeake 
Bay, and it's a disgrace that the mighty Potomac is in the shape that 
it is. We don't want the Great Lakes to take a step back. It needs to 
be improved. The last thing that we need to see is that the Great Lakes 
take a step back in terms of the protection that we have.
  I travel in my district in southwest Michigan to Chicago quite a bit, 
and I can remember as a young boy going through Gary, Indiana, and some 
of those places there, and it was awful in terms of the pollution. And 
to their credit, they've done a much better job.
  But I've got to say it's my understanding that for the State of 
Indiana to issue an exemption to its own State law that prohibits 
mixing zones is wrong. This will result in a serious setback in the 
efforts to clean up the Great Lakes, especially at a time when this 
outdated mixing zone practice is slated to be eliminated altogether, 
and yet we're seeing an exemption to have it continue. It, in essence, 
rolls back the clock for sound environmental policy.
  Last week I picked up the phone and I called Governor Daniels of 
Indiana. I told him that we had a hornet's nest in southern Lake 
Michigan, and that they ought to reexamine exactly what the State of 
Indiana was allowing. The State of Indiana needs to reexamine this.
  We don't want industrial waste to be increased. We don't want raw 
sewage to be increased. We've had our beaches closed enough. I don't 
care what side of the lake you live on, no new dumping ought to be the 
mandate that we impose on every municipality, every State in the Great 
Lakes. We should not be adding pollution. Instead, we should be 
subtracting to make sure that this resource stays a treasure for every 
family, for every community, for generations to come.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota has 6 minutes. 
The gentleman from Michigan has 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. We have one speaker remaining on our side. I would ask 
the gentleman to conclude.
  Mr. EHLERS. I have one speaker, and then I would like to make some 
comments again.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. So conclude with your two speakers, and then we'll 
conclude on our side.
  Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I cautiously come to the 
floor today, but I'm troubled by the process here.
  I come from a Great Lakes State, Pennsylvania. We cherish the Great 
Lakes, but we're passing a resolution today because of a newspaper 
article, a column, and we have legislation without any hearings. This 
is why we don't have refinery capacity in America.
  In light of recent attention given to the Indiana Department of 
Environmental Management's permit to the BP refinery, I would like to 
provide the facts and clear up misunderstandings, says the Department 
of Environmental Management in Indiana.
  The BP wastewater permit was issued in accordance with State and 
Federal environmental laws which are protective of human health and 
environment. The State coordinated with EPA during the permitting 
process to ensure that the final permit was compliant with the Clean 
Water Act. On April 5, 2007, EPA issued a letter that they had no 
objections to the permit being issued pursuant to the Clean Water Act.
  There are many inaccuracies in the recent media reports. They have 
given no exceptions to environmental conditions for this facility. The 
wastewater treatment permit meets all State laws and regulations that 
apply to the facility and project. Many of the limits placed in the 
permit are actually more protective than required by Federal law.
  We need to deal with these issues with the facts, not newspaper 
reports. We can't build refineries in America. We blame the refineries. 
This happens every time they try.
  I'm not for pollution in Lake Erie, but I would like to have had a 
hearing where Indiana could have had its case heard. We shouldn't be 
here on the floor debating this with very little knowledge and 
hysteria.
  The future of refining in America, the future of energy availability 
in America, we must have clean water and clean air, but if we are going 
to have a political reaction without the hearings, without the 
information, we shouldn't make these kind of decisions on the floor of 
the House.
  I'm for cleaning up the Great Lakes. I have a bill on the outer 
continental

[[Page 20233]]

shelf to produce natural gas that will give $21 billion to Great Lakes 
cleanup. That's a bill that will help us get rid of the sludge of the 
past.
  I just wish this wasn't before us without adequate process and 
hearings so we could understand what's really happened there, where we 
have a real knowledge of information, because we desperately need the 
capacity they're talking about.
  Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I will be pleased to offer some comments 
to close, particularly in view of the previous speaker.
  As I said in my earlier comments, I emphasized I was not condemning 
British Petroleum for their actions; although, I wish they had taken 
the lead in demonstrating the environmentalism that they often 
advertise that they have. But I do deplore that the State of Indiana 
was willing to give them a permit. I do deplore that the Environmental 
Protection Agency was willing to give them a permit.
  This is contrary to everything that we have been trying to do to 
clean up the Great Lakes, at huge expense. All over the Great Lakes, 
communities have tried to clean it up, and my preference would be not 
only that BP does not add to the load they're putting in the lake, I 
would prefer that they say, we're going to find a different method, and 
we're not even going to dump in the lake what we're dumping in now, 
because they are already dumping a substantial amount in.
  The goal here is not to drive BP away. It's not to stop the refinery 
project. I'd emphasize that over and over. The goal is to make sure 
that we can maintain the purity and cleanliness of the Great Lakes. And 
Lake Michigan, of course, drains into three of the other Great Lakes 
and with a smattering going into Lake Superior. So this is a very 
important issue.
  The gentleman talked a minute ago about drinking water out of the 
lakes. Forty million Americans draw their water out of the Great Lakes, 
their drinking water. That is a huge number of people. We are very 
worried about cleaning up the mercury that already exists in the lake, 
also the toxaphene and other contaminants, because people are drinking 
that water, and they are getting ill.
  The goal here is not to stop BP. The goal here is to make certain 
they find an alternative method of disposing of the ammonia and the 
total suspended solids that they are proposing to dump in the lake, and 
I would hope they also, while they're doing that, stop dumping what 
they are dumping, and make sure all the ammonia, all of the total 
suspended solids get disposed of elsewhere. Perhaps they can use a 
waste landfill, perhaps something else, but certainly we do not want 
them to be dumping any additional contaminants into the Great Lakes 
system.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  We're not here reacting to and debating a newspaper story. The report 
of the planned dumping of highly toxic, highly residual elements into 
Lake Michigan has been documented. We will have a hearing in the 
Subcommittee on Water Resources in due course, but this is an emergency 
that called out and cried out for immediate action to lay a line down 
in front of the State of Indiana and British Petroleum to let them know 
that their proposed indifference, slap in the face, to clean water, 
this precious resource, will not be tolerated by the American public.
  They will go ahead and build their refinery, but on that property, 
they have plenty of room for appropriate disposal of these wastes. They 
ought to know, they ought to understand, water is more precious than 
oil.
  The slow flushing action of Lake Michigan, it'll be 300 years before 
water turns over in that lake. It means that whatever they put in that 
lake is going to stay there for generations to come. They know that. So 
does the State of Indiana. Protect that lake.
  There are alternatives to dumping every colossal waste that industry 
can sum up into the lake. There are other alternatives. They have to 
explore those alternatives.


                             General Leave

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the 
bill pending before us.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, there's a sad irony on this decision by 
British Petroleum, and that is, 10 years ago, 1997, when I was working 
in the White House, we had made a decision and Geolyse standards were 
negotiated at that point, coming on line just about now. It took all of 
the States, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, to set standards, 
as also the other States supported the Great Lakes, about polluting and 
what was allowed and permissible to pollute on the lakes and what 
wasn't. And those Geolyse standards that brought everybody together 10 
years ago and started this movement to protect our Great Lakes in a way 
that we had not seen since the Clean Water Act, that negotiation and 
the product of that negotiation was just coming on line right now.
  And just at that moment, we have this decision by British Petroleum, 
which is the most significant dumping in Lake Michigan and the other 
Great Lakes and Lake Michigan since basically we started the Clean 
Water Act and reversing the trend of using the lake as nothing but a 
dumping ground.
  Now, if this can happen in Lake Michigan, it can happen in other 
Great Lakes, which is why other Members of other delegations have 
stepped forward, and I want to repeat, all that British Petroleum has 
to do here is they have the technology to actually take a different 
course here. It's about the size of a land mass that they have to 
acquire, and if you look again at Google Map, they have plenty of land, 
1,600 acres, to do what's right.
  So many decisions we face on the environment are about jobs and the 
environment. You can both double the size of the refinery, create those 
80 jobs, and also preserve our national commitment to the clean water 
of Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes. It's not an either/or 
choice.
  And what's so sad about the rush here is that this is a decision that 
could easily be won, that's a victory for British Petroleum, doubling 
the size of their refinery, but not doubling the size of the ammonia 
that's dumped into Lake Michigan and not increasing the amount of both 
mercury and other metals that are going to be untreated, dumped into 
Lake Michigan, and then we're all going to be asked to increase the 
money to clean up what they could have done in the beginning.
  They're spending $3.8 billion. For a fraction, they could actually 
not only increase the refinery, but increase the capacity to treat 
these chemicals, and then we're all going to be asked to increase the 
money to clean up Lake Michigan with something that never should have 
happened and hasn't happened for 10 years.

                              {time}  1115

  Now, this unusual unity here is because all of us have constituents 
that don't regard this as a party issue, a partisan issue; they regard 
it as a commitment. We have had a tremendous increase in the 
consciousness of folks about the importance of Lake Michigan and the 
other Great Lakes to the environment.
  If this was the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone, there would be no 
question. Lake Michigan, Ontario, Superior, Erie and all the Great 
Lakes are the Midwest's national parks. They stand as the largest body 
of fresh water in North America. Twenty percent of the world's entire 
fresh water is right there.
  It is America's third coast. We would never consider doing this to 
any other national treasure. BP should not consider it here. They can 
double the size of the refinery, which is a good thing; they can 
increase employment by 80 jobs, a good thing; and they can be true to 
their advertising, ``Beyond Petroleum,'' and being the most green 
energy company if they decide to take

[[Page 20234]]

the right actions. We'll help them if they want to do that.
  But to act intransigent, like they have, is wrong. We are going to be 
meeting with the North American executive this afternoon. I know the 
Illinois delegation is. We are going to meet with them to let them know 
that they have a choice here to live up to their word.
  I want to again thank all of my colleagues for stepping forward and 
giving a voice to their constituents who are outraged across the area 
with the decision by British Petroleum to do something no other company 
has decided to do in the last 10 years and reverse the standards and 
the progress we have made on the environmental quality of our Lake 
Michigan and the other Great Lakes.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in 
support of House Concurrent Resolution 187, which expresses the sense 
of Congress regarding the dumping of industrial waste into the Great 
Lakes. My colleague Rahm Emanuel has introduced this resolution, as has 
my colleague from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
Mr. Ehlers of Michigan. The resolution has 18 cosponsors from across 
the Great Lakes region.
  It is my understanding that a recent decision by Indiana state 
regulators will allow the British Petroleum company to dump more 
ammonia and suspended solids daily into Lake Michigan. Although I do 
agree that our country needs to work on finding additional materials 
and sources for energy, and we do need to create jobs to help our 
economy, I do not believe British Petroleum's plan takes our nation in 
the right direction. As a society, we need to protect our already 
endangered waters, for they provide means to run our businesses, 
fulfill daily chores, and relax.
  Improving the state of the Great Lakes is not an antiquated policy 
goal from the last century; rather, we still fight today to improve 
these waters. The House Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
Environment, which I chair, continues to pursue the problems of 
invasive species, low water levels, and pollutants entering the Lakes 
on a regular basis. We do not need to add additional waste to our 
struggling, yet essential, waters.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me and vote in favor of this 
resolution.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
resolution before us. Recently, the Indiana Department of Environmental 
Management granted BP's Whiting refinery in Indiana broad exceptions 
under the Clean Water Act. These exemptions will allow BP to increase 
the amount of discharge of ammonia by 54 percent and its discharge of 
total suspended solids by 35 percent. This means that an additional 
1,584 pounds of ammonia and 4,925 pounds of total suspended solids 
could be dumped into Lake Michigan.
  This is simply unacceptable and I thank my colleagues from Illinois 
and Michigan for bringing the resolution to the floor with the utmost 
speed. I am dismayed, Madam Speaker. Dismayed that the State of Indiana 
issued the permits and further dismayed EPA allowed the State to do so.
  Algae blooms, Madam Speaker, are serious business. Algae blooms, 
which can be caused by ammonia and total suspended solids, overtake 
native ecosystems by taking nutrients away from the surrounding plant 
life and also feed harmful bacteria which remove oxygen, killing 
aquatic life. This leads to poor water quality and beach closings. 
Instead of taking action to increase algae blooms, we should be taking 
action to decease them.
  According to BP, the company intends to install a diffuser to create 
a ``mixing zone''--mixing zones are areas where clean water gets mixed 
with polluted water to further dilute the concentration of pollutants. 
In 2000, EPA instituted a rule requiring the elimination of existing 
mixing zones for persistent and bioaccumulative pollution in all the 
Great Lakes States. The rule required the phase-out of current mixing 
zones by 2010 and does not allow any new zones to be created. The 
expansion of the BP facility is not scheduled to be finished until 
2011. The exemptions essentially roll back the clock for sound 
environmental policy.
  Madam Speaker, those of us from the region have a unique appreciation 
for the Great Lakes, as we are quite literally surrounded by them. The 
lakes are a blessing to us. We owe our tourism industry to the Great 
Lakes--where people come from around the country to recreate, hunt, 
fish and relax. The lakes as a transportation system provided Michigan 
and the surrounding States with the means to turn our region into a 
manufacturing powerhouse.
  At a time when Congress is finally taking a long-overdue look into a 
broad restoration and conservation plan for the Great Lakes, the State 
of Indiana is allowing more pollution into the lakes. And EPA--the lead 
Agency in Great Lakes Regional Collaboration--is allowing it. This, 
Madam Speaker, is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. 
Instead, restoring and protecting the Great Lakes must be a priority.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the resolution and again thank 
my friends, the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from 
Michigan, for bringing it up.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) that the House suspend the 
rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 187.
  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. UPTON. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  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.

                          ____________________