The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“WE HAVE OUR GREAT LAKES BACK BUT WE ARE NOW FACING A NEW THREAT” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Energy was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H1142-H1143 on March 21, 2000.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
WE HAVE OUR GREAT LAKES BACK BUT WE ARE NOW FACING A NEW THREAT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, just 30 years ago, the Great Lakes had been all but pronounced dead. Lake Erie was filled with garbage, and rotting fish regularly washed up on the beach. The Cuyahoga River, which flows into Lake Erie, was so polluted that in 1969 it caught fire. Lake trout in Lake Michigan and Lake Huron were all but wiped out. The Federal Government even banned the consumption of walleye because of the high levels of toxic mercury.
Today, however, we can say that through dedication and hard work, the Great Lakes are one of environmentalism's most dramatic success stories. Lake Michigan's fish population has recovered with steelhead, salmon, and brown trout. Lake trout and lower Huron and Superior are recovering rapidly as well. We have our Great Lakes back, but now we are facing a new threat.
Water scarcity is becoming a worldwide problem. Over 166 million people in 18 countries are suffering from water shortages. Almost 270 million more in 11 additional countries are considered water stressed. Experts predict that by 2025, one-fourth of the world will suffer from lack of water. Given the pressures of population increase and dropping water tables, present-day water usage cannot be sustained. Some are trying to change fresh water from a resource to a commodity.
Given these disturbing statistics, it is not surprising that there are now proposals to withdraw bulk quantities of water from the Great Lakes Basin. After all, the Great Lakes compromise one-fifth of the earth's fresh water resources, but we still do not know the effects that bulk water exports would have on the Great Lakes system.
In an effort to examine the environmental, economic, and social impact of bulk water removals from the Great Lakes, the United States and Canadian governments asked the International Joint Commission to report on this matter. Last week, the IJC released its final report.
The IJC reported that removals of water from the Great Lakes basin could reduce the resilience of the system and its capacity to cope with future and unpredictable stresses. Despite its vastness, over 6 quadrillion gallons of water, the system is also extremely vulnerable to disruption. Any hydrological changes to the water system, even small changes, could have devastating ecological consequences.
Due to these environmental concerns, the IJC recommended a moratorium on such exports should be imposed for 2 years, to give the Great Lakes governors time to collect further data and assess the environmental impact of such removals. Most importantly, the IJC recommended that decisions regarding bulk exports should remain in the hands of those that are closest to this great resource, the State governments of the Great Lakes Region.
I grew up in Michigan and I know firsthand how important these lakes are to the States around them. They are not just a water resource. They are a way of life; from shipping to hydro power to tourism and recreation. Our Great Lakes communities rely on these water resources to support vital sectors of their economy. That is why I have introduced legislation, H.R. 2973, to not only protect our Great Lakes but also to ensure that those with the most vested interest in their future, the people who live in the Great Lakes States, are the ones who make the decisions about how they are managed.
For the past 15 years, the governors of the Great Lakes States, in consultation with the Canadian premiers, have effectively managed the basin. What we need to do now, and what my legislation will do, is impose a moratorium on bulk exports to give the governors the time that they need to effectively evaluate how and if any bulk exports from the Great Lakes basin should proceed.
We do not want to transfer management of the Great Lakes from the governors to the Federal Government. That is not the direction we should take.
Lake levels are at an all-time low. The Washington Post recently reported that Lake Superior is at 9 inches below its long-term average. Michigan and Huron were 18 inches below average. Erie was 9 inches below and Ontario was 5 inches low.
Now is the time to act on this matter. Prudent management of our natural resources means looking ahead and planning for the future. As we begin this century, we must be responsible stewards of our environment, to ensure that our children are not denied the resources that we did are able to enjoy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge members of the Great Lakes States and all Members of Congress to join me in following the IJC's report and enacting H.R. 2973.
{time} 2000
A BEGGAR'S LIFE: U.S. POLICY MUST BE SOMETHING MORE THAN BEGGING AT
OPEC'S DOORSTEP
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago this month I made my first speech on the House floor, highlighting the importance of domestic oil production and our dangerous reliance upon imported oil. At that time oil was just under $15 a barrel and gasoline was around 80 cents a gallon.
Within the following 12 months, the price of crude would fall to
$7.75 per barrel for western Kansas crude and would remain under $10 per barrel for most of the next year. As a result of the dramatic price decline, since 1997 more than 136,000 wells were shut in and more than 41,000 jobs were lost in the oil and gas industry in our country. This amounts to 136,000 wells and 41,000 people not producing oil to meet our country's energy needs.
It was during that time that I introduced legislation aimed at reducing the cost of production for independent oil and gas producers. The bill seeks to boost domestic production by lowering the tax burden on small producers, increasing the credit for advanced oil recovery and calling for a strategic plan that would include additional research and development on secondary and tertiary oil recovery to address our national security needs.
While the focus now is on the cost of energy paid by the American consumer, the solution for today's consumer is the same as the solution for the problem of the independent oil and gas producer. We must encourage production in our domestic industry and limit our dependence on foreign supplies of petroleum.
The U.S. is currently importing around $100 billion of oil a year, one-third of our country's $300 billion trade deficit. High oil prices are a burden that we all bear. Kansas is a transportation-dependent State with normally cold winter weather. Whether it is the Kansas farmer preparing his field for spring planting, the trucker hauling wheat to the elevator, or the Kansas City commuter on her way to work, we all pay when our dependence on foreign oil becomes too great.
While we may be upset about the current situation, we cannot say that it comes as a surprise. In the last 7 years, U.S. oil production has fallen by nearly 20 percent, while oil consumption has risen by almost 15 percent. During the 25 years since the last oil crisis, our reliance on foreign oil has increased from 37 percent to nearly 60 percent today. America is now at its lowest oil production since World War II. We are importing 10.5 million barrels of oil a day, and that pattern is expected to only get worse. The Department of Energy predicts that by the year 2010, a mere 10 years from now, we will import nearly 80 percent of our energy needs.
Today's higher crude prices alone are insufficient to increase domestic production, particularly in the short run. Kansas producers have lost much of their equity and find it very difficult to convince lenders to take the necessary risks to explore and develop new leases. When prices are dependent upon the actions of OPEC rather than only free market forces, the ability to take those risks necessary to find and produce new sources of oil are limited.
Does the small Kansas producer invest the necessary money, not knowing what the world price will be tomorrow? In Kansas the average daily production is 2.2 barrels per day per well. The cost per barrel is very high and the price received from that barrel determined by foreign suppliers. The stability which comes from greater control of our own destiny through increased domestic production is what is required.
The current situation is a clear signal for congressional action. The U.S. is producing less and less oil. Oil rigs and production have fallen by 77 percent since 1990. It is our obligation in Congress to develop tax policies, regulatory policies, and research funding that will allow us to raise domestic production to meet the future demands of the U.S. economy.
Our strategy for dealing with our future energy needs must be something more than simply begging at OPEC's doorstep.
____________________
