[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 111 (Thursday, July 25, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1371]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page E1371]]


                      THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN D. DINGELL

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 25, 1996

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, with my colleagues Mr. Waxman and Mr. 
Stupak, I am today introducing legislation to extend an arbitrary 
deadline established by the House leadership that will deprive the 
States, cities, and towns of more than $700 million for protecting and 
enhancing the Nation's drinking water. Sadly it is the fumbling of the 
House Leadership that necessitates this action.
  Mr. Speaker, when the leadership cobbled together the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act earlier this year, it included language which set an 
August 1 deadline for the $725 million that had been accumulated to 
fund the new safe drinking water state loan fund. Specifically, the 
measure provided that Congress must pass Safe Drinking Water Act 
amendments authorizing the revolving loan fund before the deadline. 
Without passage of the amendments, the funds will pass to the clean 
water fund and will no longer be available to help this Nation's water 
systems provide safe and healthy water.
  All agree this loss would be catastrophic.
  To avoid this problem, the House unanimously passed a strong, 
bipartisan reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act on June 25, 
1996. This measure will improve protection of our drinking water from 
microbiological contaminants that cause acute illnesses--even death--
from single exposures. It will reduce exposures to carcinogens, 
endocrine disruptors and other long-term human health threats. Equally 
importantly, the bill gives States and water districts unprecedented 
flexibility to customize their safe drinking water programs to meet 
their individual needs and circumstances.
  But with this progress and flexibility will come increased 
responsibilities for the States and the water districts. And this is 
where the State revolving fund comes in. This fund is vital to help 
States and localities meet the costs of complying with the Safe 
Drinking Water Act.
  This State revolving fund is to be divided between the States by an 
objective formula. States can use the money for grants and loans to 
their water districts under rules that focus the money on projects that 
address the most serious health risks, ensure compliance with the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, and assist water districts with the greatest need 
on a per household basis.
  Despite the strong, bipartisan support for this measure and for the 
establishment of the safe drinking water fund, the House leadership 
complicated the task of completing work by the deadline. First, while 
the bill passed on June 25, conferees were not selected until July 17, 
some 22 days after passage and after more than half of the time 
available before the deadline had passed. Worse, when conferees were 
appointed, the leadership added layers of complexity by appointing 
three committees as conferees on the bill.

  Indeed, the leadership decided that one committee which added some 
pork projects to the Safe Drinking Water Act on the floor would be the 
exclusive conferees on those pork provisions.
  I have asked the Parliamentarians for a list of the bills in this or 
other Congresses in which such an extraordinary and remarkable 
appointment had been made--naming as exclusive or even majority 
conferees a committee that was not the primary committee on a bill. 
Thus far, we have been shown no other examples. This leaves me to 
conclude that this is merely a political exercise. While, I trust, 
therefore, that it will have no precedential value, it still must be 
faced during this conference.
  In practical terms this means that there will be no conference 
report, and no safe drinking water bill enacted into law, until the 
conferees from the Transportation Committee have secured everything 
they want. This is not a formula for a fast conference.
  So today, only 6 days before this money is lost, we find ourselves in 
the following predicament. The conferees have not met. No issues have 
been resolved. We do have a conferees' meeting scheduled for tomorrow 
morning. But there is no telling at this moment whether there will be 
any progress before we depart this week.
  I remain hopeful that our staffs can make progress without our 
assistance over the weekend, and that time will not run out on us. But 
when we get back next week we will have to have an agreement reached, a 
conference report drafted and signed, approval of that report voted by 
both Houses of Congress, and a bill sent to the President and signed--
all before midnight on Wednesday.
  Mr. Speaker, is this possible? Yes, I still believe it is. But I do 
not want our constituents to suffer an irrational forfeiture of this 
money for safe drinking water. If it becomes necessary on Monday, I ask 
the Appropriations Committee, the leadership, and the House to move the 
deadline and rescue this money for the safe drinking water systems of 
this country.

                          ____________________