[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20188-20189]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  S.J. RES. 45, GREAT LAKES-ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BASIN WATER RESOURCES 
                                COMPACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote on the Great 
Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resource Compact. I am asking 
Members to vote ``no'' and slow down the approval of this compact.
  I am deeply concerned that this compact would allow Great Lakes water 
to be defined as a ``product.'' By allowing water to be defined as a 
``product,'' the compact could subject the Great Lakes to international 
trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, 
NAFTA; or the World Trade Organization, WTO.
  There is also no language in the compact that recognizes that Great 
Lakes water is held in public trust. The public owns the waters of the 
Great Lakes,

[[Page 20189]]

and anything Congress passes should preserve this principle.
  The compact was created in response to the first large-scale threat 
of privatization of the Great Lakes. In 1998 the Ontario Minister of 
Natural Resources granted a permit to a private firm, the Nova Group, 
to ship millions of gallons of Lake Superior water to China. I led the 
fight opposing the sale of our Great Lakes water, and we were 
successful in pressuring the Canadian Government to suspend this 
permit. This case exposed the region's vulnerability to private and 
public entities who wished to commercialize the world's largest body of 
fresh water for financial gain. While the original intent of the Great 
Lakes Compact was to protect our water from diversions, the compact the 
States have sent to Congress may unintentionally have the opposite 
effect and set a precedent that would open up the door to water 
diversions.
  The Great Lakes Governors have spent more than 3 years addressing the 
local and State implications of the compact. Unfortunately, we have not 
undergone the same deliberative process. We have spent less than 20 
legislative days since the introduction of this legislation. We have 
conducted no hearings to consider the Federal and international 
implications. Congress is rushing to a vote when one of our Nation's 
most precious natural resources, the Great Lakes, is at stake. So 
before we ratify the Great Lakes Compact, the following questions must 
be fully investigated:
  First, how does the compact's exemption of water in containers 
smaller than 5.7 gallons affect the Federal prohibition on diversions 
under the Water Resources Development Act?
  Second, will creating a Federal definition of Great Lakes water as a 
``product'' subject it to international trade law or agreements such as 
NAFTA or WTO?
  Third, what actions taken by the Great Lakes States to protect the 
Great Lakes from international commercial entities who seek to 
privatize the Great Lakes ever be subject to claims under GATT, the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; or the WTO?
  I have asked these questions to the International Joint Commission, 
the United States Trade Representative, and the Department of State 
before Congress adjourned for the August recess. While these agencies 
have acknowledged my requests, they were unable to provide any 
substantive answers. Without answers to these questions, Members should 
vote ``no'' on this legislation. I do not know how any Member in good 
conscience could vote to approve legislation that may unintentionally 
open the Great Lakes water to diversions through privatization, 
commercialization, and exportation. So I urge my colleagues to slow 
this process down. There is no time limit on this agreement. We can 
take our time.
  So I urge you to vote ``no'' on Senate Joint Resolution 45 so we may 
fully address the questions and pass a compact that truly protects the 
Great Lakes.

                          ____________________