Twenty years ago, March 3, 1987, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Clinger, the Republican ranking member on the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, which I had the privilege of chairing, and I held a hearing on this very subject, on the U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. We observed the agreement was signed in 1972 and renewed in 1978. It continues in perpetuity, but we observed, while progress has been made, while the Cuyahoga River no longer catches on fire, the bad news is that a great deal of that improvement is due to economic decline in the steel industry. Industries that formerly dumped waste are no longer operating. Fish are able to survive, but now they are surviving with cancers. Some areas of the lakes where birds are deformed because of Toxiphene and Dieldrin. Mr. Clinger and I both observed the real test of our commitment is yet to come. Will we break out of the planning and research cycle, which we have failed to do in the case of acid rain, and begin to implement protective measures which would strengthen the laws and effective remedial programs.
James Oberstar: “Twenty years ago, March 3, 1987, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Clinger, the Republican ranking member on the…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and its impacts during a floor speech.
Share
More from James Oberstar
I rise with a very heavy heart to join fellow cyclists throughout Minnesota in mourning the untimely loss of Terry McGhauhey, father, founder, godfather, midwife, impresario of the Paul Bunyan Bicycle Trail. It was Terry McGhauhey who, 22…
First, I am grateful for the indulgence of our colleague on the committee, our ranking member and senior Republican, Mr. Mica, for responding so quickly to the action of the other body. We are unaccustomed to such prompt unanimous action…
But we all also recognize that the potential cost of meeting these needs is immense.
In House floor consideration of the railroad retirement program, it was made very clear time and again by both sides of the aisle that this plan for railroad retirement was not a formula for Social Security. Both sides were at pains to say…





