WASHINGTON – House Concurrent Resolution 140 (H. Con Res. 140), a bill authorizing “management authority” over Great Lakes water to Great Lakes Governors and Canadian Premiers, was to be voted on in the House International Relations (I.R.) Committee today.  The bill ended up being pulled from the Committee’s schedule at the last minute.

H. Con. Res. 140, sponsored by Congressman Mike Rogers (R-Brighton) and cosponsored by 26 other Republicans, was to be presented before the I.R. Committee where several Great Lakes Members of Congress were positioned to challenge its validity.

Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Menominee) expressed serious concerns about the far reaching legislation.  Stupak, a leader in protecting the Great Lakes, said that the resolution is misleading, is inconsistent with Constitutional law and sets dangerous precedents.

The Rogers resolution states that Congress urges the “management authority” over the waters of the Great Lakes “remain vested” with the Great Lakes states and the Premiers of Canada, but the resolution is misleading because that broad power is not vested with governors and premiers.

“I applaud those Members of Congress who were ready to stand up for our Great Lakes by pointing out many of the inaccuracies in this legislation,” Stupak said. “Rogers’ resolution presumes something that doesn’t even exist. There is no federal law that authorizes governors and premiers this over arching authority.  This is yet another example of Mike Rogers’ political greed outweighing what is in the best interest for the Great Lakes.”

Stupak said that granting additional power to Canadian Premiers, as stated by this resolution, could give Canada broad management authority over all the Great Lakes, including Lake Michigan, which lies completely inside the U.S.  Stupak said. “You must remember, Ontario approved a permit for the Nova Group to sell Lake Superior water to China until I and other federal officials weighed in.”

Other inconsistencies of the Rogers resolution ignores basic Constitutional rights such as “no states shall enter into a treaty” with a foreign government and the Interstate Commerce clause. Under the Rogers proposal there would be no need for the International Joint Commission founded under the Boundary Waters Treaty;   no need for the federal government to fund the Great Lakes Commission, Army Corps of Engineers or the Clean Waters Act as it pertains to the Great Lakes. Each state or province could do what it deemed best for the Great Lakes without the consent or agreement of the other states.

“We cannot have eight Great Lakes states with eight different policies on water diversion, aquatic nuisances or oil and gas drilling.  We need one uniform set of regulations and Mr. Rogers’ resolution takes us in the opposite direction,” Stupak said.                                                            

Stupak went on to say, “If Congressman Rogers really wants to protect the Great Lakes, he’s going to have work with Members of Congress who are knowledgeable about the issue.  I stand ready to work with him on a reasonable resolution expressing Congress’s desire for input from Great Lakes governors, but not one that completely cedes power away from the federal government for such a valuable and irreplaceable asset. By challenging the Rogers resolution, we protect the Great Lakes, the integrity of our Constitution and the sovereignty of America.” 

In April, an amendment to the Energy bill in the House proposed by Rep. Stupak to permanently ban oil and gas drilling beneath the Great Lakes was watered down by Rep. Rogers in a move to allow governors to set their own policies regarding drilling. 

###

*An actuality is available at 1-800-320-6091. Enter access code 2793.