Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
First, a bipartisan group of six
US House members who represent
Great Lakes states introduced a
package of initiatives this week
to protect the lakes.
The Great Lakes Ecological and
Economic Protection Act would
address issues including
invasive species, water
pollution, contaminated sediment
and wildlife protection.
The act would also authorize an
advisory board whose members
represent business, agriculture,
environmental groups and
academics.
The point?
To protect the lakes and boost
economic growth in the region.
But on the same day this
bipartisan group introduced
these initiatives, a House
subcommittee voted to cut
existing funding for Great Lakes
programs off at the knees,
slashing expenditures by 80% as
part of the second year of
spending cuts under
sequestration.
As part of our continuing series
with Wisconsin Public Radio and
the Center for Investigative
Journalism, Water Watch
Wisconsin, we explore the future
of Great Lakes restoration now
with Congressman Tom Petri who
joins us from Washington.
Congressman, thanks very much
for doing so.
>> Well, thank you, Frederica.
>> So on the one hand your
bipartisan group introduces a
beefed-up Great Lakes protection
plan, and on the other this
House sub-committee approves a
plan to cut this existing
funding by 80%.
What is your reaction to their
vote?
>> Well, the fact is that we've
had a program, it's been
working, and we're-- it's also
received cuts.
And we're not asking for the
sky.
We recognize these are tough
budgetary times.
But we can't just abandon the
Great Lakes.
We've made progress.
We're working to stop the
invasive species, like the Asian
carp, from coming into the Great
Lakes.
We've helped, through this
program, to do a good job of
coordinating federal, state and
local efforts.
And we don't want to abandon
that because the Great Lakes, we
sometimes take them for granted,
but they're very, very important
for our region and for our
country.
>> Well, it sounds like it would
be a bit of an abandonment if
this-- if the Great Lakes, kind
of, spending programs would be
cut from what they are now at
$300 million, I understand,
which is already kind of a
reduction, down to $60 million.
How exactly can you kind of
enact the kinds of programs that
you and your bipartisan group
would like to under those kinds
of spending limits?
>> You know, the height of
spending for this program was
in 2010, when it reached $475
million.
We're proposing $275 million,
which is $10 million less than
currently is being spent.
To go to $60 million, someone
said, well, that would be
cutting the Great Lakes down to
one lake, basically.
It would not be a prudent or
wise thing to do, and I will say
this.
This is an action that was taken
in an early stage of the
appropriation process.
We're going to continue working
on it, and I don't think that
that's going to end up standing.
>> Because I was going to ask,
how do you get kind of the
inland house members to sign on
to the importance of the Great
Lakes and the region, like those
that slashed this funding?
Because I took a look at the
people on that committee, and
there were some Minnesota, but
generally not the same group,
obviously, as was in your
bipartisan group that introduced
this environmental act for the
Great Lakes.
How do you get these inland
House members to understand the
importance?
>> Well, the Great Lakes covers,
touches, a huge region, from
New York all the way to
Minnesota, including Ohio and
Michigan and Indiana and
Pennsylvania and Illinois.
And we can hold our own in
national debates, and I think we
will.
The appropriation process in
Washington is a pretty
complicated and sometimes
frightening one.
And the action that was taken by
a subcommittee in the House of
Representatives is a very
preliminary step.
It still needs to go to the full
appropriation committee and then
to the House of Representatives
and a similar process in the
Senate.
And we'll see if the bill
actually even reaches the floor
of the House of Representatives.
The last couple of years,
because of different budget
resolutions and actions in the
House and in the Senate, we've
ended up not passing a lot of
the appropriation bills, but
instead having an omnibus bill
at the end of the budget year in
September, early October.
And I wouldn't be surprised if
that doesn't happen again this
year.
And as that goes forward, you
know, we'll be watching it and
working on it.
We recognize these are tough
budgetary times and we've got to
be prudent.
But prudence doesn't mean sort
of jerking around and stopping
and starting.
That ends up being more costly,
not only environmentally, but
even in terms of actually the
cost of doing projects than
having a steady program, maybe
with some cuts as we're seeing
right now.
>> Now, one of the things you
want to do in the act that you
introduced is reauthorize the
Great Lakes Legacy Act that
removed contaminated sediment
from the Sheboygan River.
How many more such projects
affecting the Great Lakes are
there like that to do?
>> Well, it certainly did help
in Sheboygan.
It cost them $60 million at the
federal level and was a
multi-year project to get rid of
the contamination.
We in our region of Wisconsin,
we've had contamination in a
number of areas.
One of the most important was in
the Fox River going from
Appleton to Green Bay.
There have been efforts to
restore beaches and other areas
in Milwaukee and in Oshkosh.
And this is a resource that
local citizens, local
governments, can work with in
trying to improve the
environment and build their
economic future by being good
stewards.
>> Because how important do you
regard the Great Lakes,
environmentally and
economically?
>> Well, the Great Lakes are
crucial.
You can't imagine what our life
would be like in Wisconsin or in
our region without-- this is the
largest body of freshwater by
far in the world.
It's an international frontier.
It links us to the world through
the St. Lawrence seaway, and it
is of huge importance to provide
for commerce and fisheries and
tourism in our region.
We've been working very hard for
a number of years to-- and
especially as Milwaukee did with
the big dig, for example, to
improve the situation so far as
discharges into the lake is
concerned.
And there are a number of
ongoing environmental and other
programs to make sure that we
preserve the Great Lakes and
even enhance them.
And they're becoming an
increasing international tourism
attraction.
Cruise ships are beginning to
populate the Great Lakes.
People come from Europe and
other places to see the scenes
in Wisconsin and Illinois and
other areas in the Great Lakes.
>> Congressman Tom Petri, we
leave it there.
Thanks for joining us on this.
We'll be watching.
>> Thank you, Frederica.