Fairness in Higher Education Act of 2007

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate joint resolution (S.J. Res. 45) expressing the consent and approval of Congress to an interstate compact regarding water resources in the Great Lakes--St. Lawrence River Basin.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation gives congressional consent to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact. Before I continue, I would like to commend the distinguished chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. James Oberstar, who sponsored the House version of this legislation, as well as the senior Senator from Michigan, Carl Levin, for their hard work in spearheading this effort. I would also like to thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Congressman John Conyers, for his support.

Today, Congress considers this legislation pursuant to our duty in article I, section 10, clause 3 of the Constitution, the ``compacts clause,'' to review and approve agreements between States or between States and foreign governments to ensure that they are consistent with the broader national interests.

In the case before us, there is no question that the compact designed and agreed to by eight States is in our national interest. The Great Lakes Compact will help to preserve and improve this important natural resource, our Great Lakes, for years to come. The Great Lakes are one of our greatest treasures, an important natural asset that we must never take for granted and that we must always protect.

With one-fifth of the world's fresh water, the Great Lakes attracted the early settlers to the legion, and today nearly 33 million people live and work within the basin, spanning eight States: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York and my home State of Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, the Great Lakes are not only a source of drinking water, but they are also essential for recreation, jobs and the overall health of our economy. Lake Erie alone supports 240,000 jobs and $5.8 billion in wages. The Great Lakes are also highways, moving goods, people and services throughout the region. In addition, the Great Lakes support a multi-billion dollar a year sport fishing and recreational boating industry, and also support travel and tourism throughout the region.

However, the Great Lakes are vulnerable to depletion. Each year, rainfall and snowmelt replenish only about 1 percent of the water in the basin. Uncontrolled and careless diversions of water could thus be highly detrimental to the health of the Great Lakes. This compact will bring an end to destructive diversions of water from the basin.

The purpose of this compact is to formalize cooperation among the Great Lakes States, to develop and implement regional goals and objectives for water conservation while preserving the States' flexibility regarding their water management programs.

New or increased diversions of water from the basin will be banned and community rights will be respected as long as appropriately rigorous standards are met. In addition, every 5 years the regional goals and objectives for water conservation will be reviewed to deal with any new issues that arise.

As is routinely the case, Mr. Speaker, Congress expressly reserves the right to alter, amend or repeal this resolution in the future and to strengthen the compact, if necessary.

The people of the eight States have worked diligently to craft this compact to preserve this vital resource, and it is urgent that we approve it now to ensure that our Great Lakes are here for future generations.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, at this time I would like to insert into the Record correspondence between Representatives Peter Visclosky and David Hobson and Governor Jim Doyle, Chair of the Council of Great Lakes Governors. This correspondence clarifies the Council's intent and interpretation of section 4.11.2 of the Compact's decisionmaking standard relating to the scale and scope of impacts that would be deemed sufficiently significant such to preclude approval of a withdrawal proposal.

I would like to thank Representatives Visclosky and Hobson for their dedicated efforts on this matter and their continued dedication to preserving our Great Lakes.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, August 25, 2008.

Hon. Jim Doyle,

Chairman, Council of Great Lakes Governors, East Wacker

Drive, Chicago, Illinois.

Dear Governor Doyle: We write regarding H.R. 6577, a

measure to approve the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin

Water Resources Compact.

It has been brought to our attention that there are

concerns regarding the scope and scale of impacts considered

in the Decision-Making Standard under Section 4.11.2 of H.R.

6577. As the House proceeds forward with action to approve

the Compact, we are writing to clarify and confirm the

interpretation of this provision.

As you are aware, as part of the criteria governing review

and approval of proposals for water withdrawals, Section

4.11.2 of the Compact requires a demonstration that

``Withdrawal or Consumptive Use will be implemented so as to

ensure that the Proposal will result in no significant

individual or cumulative adverse impacts to the quantity

and quality of the Waters and Water Dependant Natural

Resources and the applicable Source Watershed.'' During the

states' adoption of the Compact, a concern was raised in a

number of jurisdictions regarding a potential ambiguity as to

the scale of impacts that would preclude withdrawal

approvals.

This issue is of particular importance, because interpreted

improperly, this provision could thwart economic development

and threaten existing operations seeking to expand. Because

of the ambiguity in terms of how the definition of ``Source

Watershed'' and Section 4.11.2 work together, the question

has been raised as to whether the significance of impacts is

to be judged based on impacts upon the overall Source

Watershed, which is defined as the drainage area of each

Great Lake, or can measurable impacts on flow within just a

few hundred feet of a stream, which occurs with many

withdrawals, be enough to preclude a project. If Section

4.11.2 is misread, it could become a serious impediment to

the states' undertaking and approving economic development

projects, which we are sure is not the Governors' intent.

On December 5, 2005, Sam Speck, Chair of the Working Group

that drafted the Compact, indicated that the Working Group

intended the term ``Waters and Water Dependant Natural

Resources'' to refer to all waters of the Basin, and that the

scope of impact consideration is to assure that ``there be no

significant adverse impacts to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence

River Basin as a whole'' as well as no significant adverse

impacts to the Source Watershed as a whole.

Several state legislatures, including Indiana, Ohio, and

Pennsylvania, reflected this position in their respective

legislation adopting the Compact. Those states included in

their legislation provisions expressing and clarifying the

intent of the legislatures in adopting Section 4.11.2 (see

Indiana Senate Enrolled Act No. 45 of 2008 at Section 10;

Ohio House Bill 416 (as adopted) at Section 1522.07(B); and

Pennsylvania Act 43 of 2008 at Section 5(3)).

Consistent with Chairman Speck and the statements of

legislative intent provided by the above states, we would

respectfully request that you confirm that the following

interpretation correctly expresses the understanding and view

of the Council of Great Lakes Governors, as prime drafters

and sponsors of the Compact, with respect to the scope of

impact question:

1. Section 4.11.2 of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River

Basin Water Resources Compact is intended to require that a

withdrawal or consumptive use of Great Lakes water will be

implemented so as to ensure that the withdrawal or

consumptive use will result in no significant individual or

cumulative adverse impacts to the quantity or quality of the

waters and water dependent natural resources of either of the

following:

(a) The basin considered as a whole;

(b) The applicable source watershed considered as a whole.

2. States may take into consideration, as part of the

evaluation of reasonable use as provided in Section 4.11.5 of

the Compact, those impacts of a withdrawal or consumptive use

on the quantity or quality of waters and water dependent

natural resources that have only localized impacts which are

not of import to the basin or source watershed considered as

a whole.

3. As provided in Section 4.12.1 of the Compact, the

Compact's standard is a minimum standard and that states may,

as a matter of state law, adopt by state statutes,

regulations or other means relating to the assessment and

consideration of impacts which are more stringent than the

decision-making standard set forth in the Compact.

We would appreciate your written response confirming the

able interpretation, which we would intend be reflected in

the legislative history of the Compact as the House proceeds.

We look forward to working with you and the other Council

members in continuing efforts to approve the Compact before

the end of this session.

Thank you for your consideration of this request. Do not

hesitate to let us know if you have any questions or need

additional information.

Sincerely,

Peter J. Visclosky,

Member of Congress.

David L. Hobson,

Member of Congress.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his passionate statement.

We have specifically retained the right to amend and alter the compact. I would just also mention that we have worked to effectively address the gentleman's concerns in the committee report.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

I think we have the assurances that the States will act reasonably in their best interests and our best interests as a region.

Well, I respectfully disagree with the gentleman. We are not really giving up our rights. This has always been a joint effort with a specific responsibility left with the States, a specific responsibility left with this Congress, and we retained this.

I thank the gentleman for the point that he raises. I believe that the agreement and the committee report language effectively addresses that concern.

I will take back my time, and I will answer the gentleman's question.

Mr. Speaker, our Great Lakes' water is currently, at present, at risk to be carelessly diverted from our basin, and that is why action is so important here today. If we allow that to happen, this water will never return.

All eight Great Lakes States have agreed to this compact. I would like to thank Ohio's Governor Ted Strickland for guiding this essential compact through the Ohio State House and Senate.

A stretch of Lake Erie shoreline touches my congressional district, and Lake Erie contributes over $9 billion in tourism and travel revenue to our State's economy. In my district we already utilize Lake Erie commercially through Lorain Harbor, and we need this compact to protect our Great Lakes, our water, our source of recreation, our jobs and our economy, and we need this compact now.

For the overall health of our Great Lakes and our region, we must pass this compact today to protect our Great Lakes and ensure that future generations will have this great resource. I urge my colleagues to support the Great Lakes compact.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S.J. Res. 45, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact.

In July, I, together with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers, Jr.), Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), introduced H.R. 6577, the ``Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact'', the House companion bill for the legislation that we consider today.

H.R. 6577 received the bipartisan support of almost 50 Great Lakes Members and the Committee on the Judiciary ordered the bill reported favorably to the House on July 30. However, to expedite implementation of the Compact, the House agreed to consider the Senate companion legislation (S.J. Res. 45), which the other body passed on August 1. Today, we hope to complete the long process for implementation of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact by sending this ``consent of Congress'' directly to the President, where he has said he will sign it. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important legislation for the protection of the Great Lakes for current and future generations.

Mr. Speaker, the Great Lakes are national and international treasures, serving as both the nation's largest fresh water resource and one of the largest systems of fresh water on earth--containing nearly 20 percent of the world supply. Formed by melting glaciers 10,000 to 12,000 years ago, the Great Lakes contain enough fresh water to cover the entire landmass of the continental United States to a depth of almost 10 feet.

Yet, despite their massive volume, the Lakes' water is a fragile resource. Rainfall and snowmelt replenish only about one percent of the water in the Great Lakes each year, with the remaining 99 percent of the volume being carried over from year-to-year. It is this unique circumstance that requires the nation, and

Congress, to be vigilant in protecting the waters of the Great Lakes for the use and sustainability of the environmental, economic, and public health of the Great Lakes Basin.

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has been integral in protecting the waters of the Great Lakes from water diversions. In the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (``WRDA 1986''), the Committee required that each of eight Great Lakes States consent to any diversion of water from the Great Lakes Basin. WRDA 1986 prohibited any diversion of Great Lakes water by any State, Federal agency, or private entity for use outside the Great Lakes Basin without the consent of each of the eight Governors of the Great Lakes States.

Unfortunately, however, the waters of the Great Lakes are still at risk.

In 1998, Congress learned of a plan, approved by the Canadian province of Ontario, to export up to 160 million gallons of water from Lake Superior for sale to Asia. After this incident, a decision was made by the Governors of the eight Great Lakes States and Congress to strengthen Federal and interstate protections of Great Lakes waters.

In the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure strengthened the prohibition on diversions of Great Lakes waters by explicitly prohibiting exports, and ``encourage[d] the Great Lakes, in consultation with the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, to develop and implement a mechanism that provides a common conservation standard embodying the principles of water conservation and resource improvement for making decisions concerning the withdrawal and use of water from the Great Lakes Basin.''

This ``common conservation standard'' is embodied in the Great Lakes--St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact (``Compact''), as proposed for the consent of Congress in S.J. Res. 45. The protections contained in the Compact are consistent with the underlying prohibition of diversions and exports of Great Lakes water without consent of all eight Great Lakes States under section 1109 of WRDA 1986. In addition, the Compact should be viewed as supplementary to current laws and regulations, and as an effort by the eight Great Lakes States and Congress to strengthen protections already in place.

First, the Compact establishes that ``all new or increased diversions of Great Lakes waters are prohibited,'' except within the limited exceptions contained in the Compact.

The Compact also requires each of the Great Lakes States to regulate any proposed new or increased withdrawals of Great Lakes water so as to not ``physically impact'' the waters and water-dependent natural resources of the Basin, including the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the Basin watersheds.

In addition, the Compact establishes a process for the inventory, registration, and reporting of Great Lakes water withdrawals, diversions, and consumptive uses within the Basin.

With respect to small-scale water uses, such as bottled water, beer, and canned goods, the Compact allows individual States to choose how to regulate smaller transfers of water in products. For example, the State of Michigan chose to regulate bottled water under the Compact by requiring producers to obtain a permit for new or increased water withdrawals of more than 200,000 gallons per day. Under Michigan law, a permit may be granted if, among other requirements, there are no individual or cumulative adverse impacts, the water withdrawal is reasonable under state common law principles, and the producer has certified that it is in compliance with water conservation measures. This state program ensures that bottled water proposals receive careful scrutiny.

It is time for the U.S. House of Representatives to join with the Governors and State legislatures of all eight Great Lakes States, the U.S. Senate, and the administration in support of the Great Lakes--St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S.J. Res. 45.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resource 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 would subject the Great Lakes to international trade agreements, such as the North America Free Trade Agreement or the World Trade Organization.

There is also no language in the compact that recognizes the Great Lakes waters held in trust. The public owns the water of the Great Lakes, and anything we pass should preserve this.

While the original intent of the Great Lakes Compact was to protect our water from diversion, the compact that the States have sent to Congress may unintentionally have the opposite effect and set a precedent that would open the door to diversions.

The Great Lakes Governors have spent more than 3 years addressing the local and State implications of the compact. Unfortunately, we have not done the same deliberative process. We have spent less than 20 legislative days since the introduction of this legislation. We have had no hearings in the House to consider the Federal or international implications. We are rushing to a vote when one of our Nation's most precious natural resources, the Great Lakes, is at stake.

Before we ratify the Great Lakes Compact, the following questions must be fully investigated. How does the compact's exemption of water in a container smaller than 5.7 gallons affect the Federal prohibition on diversions of water under the Water Resources Development Act?

Will creating a definition of Great Lakes water as a product subject it to international trade law or agreements such as NAFTA?

Would actions taken by the Great Lakes States to protect the Great Lakes against efforts by international commercial entities who seek to privatize the Great Lakes ever be subject to claims under the general agreements on tariffs and trade or to WTO?

I have asked these questions of 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 request, they were unable to provide me with any substantive responses. This alone should be reason enough to vote on this legislation until we have the answers to my questions.

I cannot in good conscience vote to approve legislation that may unintentionally open the Great Lakes to diversions through privatization, commercialization and exportation. It is imperative that we take our time to ensure that the legal protections we seek to enact and preserve to restore the quality and quantity of the Great Lakes water be done properly.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on Senate Joint Resolution 45 so that we may fully address the questions and pass a compact that protects the Great Lakes.

In my 16 years here in the House of Representatives, I have fought to protect these Great Lakes. Why are we rushing now to do a compact that we have not had time to examine, when the State Department cannot answer our questions, when we don't have the answers?

After we pass this legislation, it will be too late to say, oh, we might have made a mistake here. Let's not open up our Great Lakes water to commercialization and to international agreements we have no control over. Let's get the answers before we pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

What assurance do we have that if we seek to amend the compact after this is passed that the States are going to go along with us?

But once the law is passed, you can't go back and amend it, unless the States take the initiative, because under WRDA and what you are verifying here, the States would have control over it. So even if the Congress wanted us to change the compact because they are diverting our water, we can't do it unless the States act first. You are giving up the right. You are ratifying this compact, and the only way you can only come back into this compact is through the States, and not necessarily the Federal Government.

Four of the five Great Lakes are international bodies of water where the States have no say over it. That's why the Federal Government must ratify it. If we continue to ratify this compact without getting our answers, you cannot go back and reopen the international agreement unless both sides agree, including the eight States and the two provinces of Canada.

I have one other inquiry: Why are we rushing this compact? There is no end date that it has to be done before the end of the year.

It's an open-ended commitment. Why can't we wait? What's the rush?

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S.J. Res. 45, the Great Lakes--St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact. This resolution represents the culmination of efforts, which started nearly a decade ago, to create a framework to govern water withdrawals from the Great Lakes Basin.

The Great Lakes comprise the largest source of freshwater in the world--20 percent of the Earth's total and 95 percent of the surface freshwater in the United States--and they provide drinking water, transportation and recreation to tens of millions of people in the United States and Canada. Although the Great Lakes contain copious amounts of fresh water, less than one percent of the water in the Great Lakes is renewed every year through rain, snow melt, and groundwater recharge, with the remaining ninety-nine percent remaining in the lakes each year. In other words, the Great Lakes are a non-renewable resource that is currently at jeopardy from large-scale water diversions outside the Great Lakes Basin.

The catalyst for the creation of a Great Lakes Compact came in 1998 when the government of Ontario granted a permit to a private Canadian company to ship up to 160 million gallons of water per year to Asia. Thankfully, the public outcry was so strongly opposed that the deal died.

In the wake of this incident, Congress included language in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2000 which prohibited the export of Great Lakes water from the basin unless the request for withdrawal received unanimous approval of all eight Great Lakes governors. WRDA 2000 also encouraged the Great Lakes states, in consultation with Canada, to develop and implement a compact that would govern withdrawals of water from the Great Lakes Basin.

In 2005, the 8 Great Lakes governors, in collaboration with the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec, local governments, and other stakeholders, endorsed the Great Lakes Compact and referred it to the state legislatures for consideration.

On July 9, 2008, my home state of Michigan became the last Great Lake state to approve the Compact--sending it to Congress for final ratification.

The Senate passed S.J. Res. 45 by unanimous consent on August 1 and the House Judiciary Committee approved a similar House version (H.R. 6577) by voice vote on July 30. I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 6577.

The Great Lakes Compact prohibits new or increased out-of-basin, large-scale water diversions except under special circumstances, and it requires all of the Great Lakes states to develop water conservation and efficiency programs.

With respect to small-scale water diversions (containers less than 5.7 gallons), such as for bottled water, beer, and canned foods, the Compact allows states to choose how to regulate these small transfers. For instance, Michigan regulates bottled water under the Compact by requiring producers to obtain a state permit for new or increased water withdrawals of more than 200,000 gallons per day. Under Michigan law, a permit may be granted if, among other requirements, there are no individual or cumulative adverse impacts, the water withdrawal is reasonable under common law principles, and the producer has certified that it is in compliance with water conservation measures.

Although some have voiced concern over this ``bottled water exemption,'' I believe these small-scale withdrawals are better left to the states to regulate. In addition, much of the bottled water will likely remain the Great Lakes watershed, and changing the agreement now would mean the entire process must start over. With water predicted to become the oil of the future, it is imperative that we pass this agreement now so that we ensure the water in the Great Lakes Basin stays within the basin.

I hope my colleagues will join me, the Great Lakes governors, state legislatures, the U.S. Senate, and President Bush in supporting the Great Lakes Compact. Vote for S.J. Res. 45.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation before the House to grant congressional approval of the Great Lakes Compact.

Passage of this legislation today is essential to the health of the Great Lakes. With the approval of the Compact, at long last we will close the door to bulk diversion of Great Lakes water. The Compact also establishes a comprehensive management framework to protect this shared resource and requires Great Lake states to control their own large- scale water use.

Some will say that the agreement does not go far enough and that Congress should hold off approving the Compact until changes are made. We have to be careful not to let the perfect become the enemy of the good. The agreement before us is the product of years of effort and enjoys broad support from all eight Great Lakes states, the environmental community, conservation groups, and other key stakeholders. The region has come together behind this plan as the best way to protect the Great Lakes. It is now time for Congress to act.

There is no question that we're in a much stronger position to protect the Great Lakes with the Compact than without it. I urge the House to join me in supporting this vital legislation.