[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 117 (Friday, August 2, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H9862-H9877]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1316, SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS OF
1996
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 507 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
[[Page H9863]]
H. Res. 507
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (S. 1316) to reauthorize and amend title XIV of the
Public Health Service Act (commonly known as the ``Safe
Drinking Water Act''), and for other purposes. All points of
order against the conference report and against its
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be
considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Colorado
[Mr. McInnis] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley]
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 507 is a simple resolution. The
proposed rule merely provides that it shall be in order to consider the
conference report to accompany S. 1316, a bill to reauthorize and amend
the Safe Drinking Water Act. Additionally, this rule waives all points
of order against the conference report and against its consideration.
Mr. Speaker, with the passage of the conference report on S. 1316 we
can look the American people in the eye and say, we have come up with a
good program that is going to protect the water supply for America.
This is a good day's work.
The American people have called for a smaller, less costly, less
intrusive government, and we have heard their calls. However, we are
continuing our responsibilities of protecting the air we breathe and
the water we drink. This measure, The Safe Drinking Water Act, provides
this protection.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 507 is straightforward, and it was
reported by the Committee on Rules by unanimous voice vote. I urge my
colleagues to support House Resolution 507 as well as the underlying
conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank my dear friend and colleague, the gentleman from Colorado
[Mr. McInnis], for yielding me the customary half-hour.
Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and I essentially support this bill.
Today's Safe Drinking Water Act is a sound improvement to our
national drinking water laws. Those laws were enacted many years ago to
help make our drinking water supply safe.
Although you wouldn't know it, Mr. Speaker, given what's coming out
of the faucets in Washington, DC, these days, the safe drinking water
regulations are a very important part of everyday life in this country.
This bill requires water systems to notify their customers annually
of the contaminants found in their tap water. It helps small public
water systems comply with national standards.
On the whole it's a good bill and we should pass it.
Unfortunately, the process by which this bill has come to the floor
has been one more example of how my Republican colleagues are having
trouble running Congress in an efficient and bi-partisan way.
For example, Mr. Speaker, the authority to spend the money needed for
this bill ran out 2 days ago.
That means that $725 million that could have gone toward making
drinking water systems safe all across the country is lost.
Even though the bill passed the House on June 25, the Republican
leadership waited 22 days before appointing conferees.
That's right Mr. Speaker, the water systems for American cities and
towns will be $725 million poorer because my Republican colleagues
didn't finish their work on time.
For example, because of Republican carelessness, my home State of
Massachusetts has lost over $7.9 million in funds to rehabilitate aging
and dangerous drinking water systems.
And the 3\1/2\ million residents of my colleague's home State of
Colorado have lost almost $9.3 million.
Mr. Speaker, this is a disgrace.
And, to add insult to injury, the grant program in this bill is
loaded down with 24 earmarked pork projects.
Those extravagant pork projects will take much needed money away from
the State revolving fund.
It's going to take $8 billion to do all we need to do to fix our
Nation's drinking water problems. We ought to get our priorities
straight.
I urge my Republican colleagues to get their work done sooner because
it's 1996 and American citizens should have no doubts whatsoever about
how safe and clean their water is.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I remind all my colleagues that this bill came out of the committee
unanimous. It has the support of the gentleman from Massacuhsetts [Mr.
Moakley].
This is what our debate is about here on the rule, and this is one of
those few times where I think everybody in the Chamber is in agreement
on the rule, so I see no further need to have speakers.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the House Resolution 507, I call
up the conference report on the bill (S. 1316) waiving points of order
against the conference report to accompany the bill (S. 1316) to
reauthorize and amend title XIV of the Public Health Service Act,
commonly known as the Safe Drinking Water Act, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 507, the
conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
August 1, 1996, at page H9679).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] will each be recognized for
30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley].
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, 1 week ago today I convened the first
meeting of the conference committee on this proposal, the Safe Drinking
Water Act Amendments of 1996.
I noted at that time that we had a big job to do and just a short
time to do it. We had two bills that, while similar in significant
respects, also contained serious differences. As we all know, we had
just a small amount of time in which to accomplish our task.
I also noted that, on that occasion, the tremendous principles of
both the House and the Senate in developing this legislation. First and
foremost, this measure assures each of us, and our children, cleaner,
safer, purer drinking water. It represents commonsense environmentalism
rather than the rigid, inflexible mandates of prior law.
This measure, instead, promotes flexibility. It empowers States and
local water authorities to focus their resources on those contaminants
that pose the greatest risks. For the first time ever, it gives those
same States and local water authorities the flexibility they need to
get the job done.
I was privileged earlier in my life to serve as mayor of the city of
Richmond. I have spoken with mayors about this measure and also to the
Governors and to local water officials.
{time} 1200
They tell me this bill is a godsend. According to the Congressional
Budget Office, this conference agreement will ``change the Federal
drinking water program in ways that would lower the costs to public
water systems of complying with existing and future requirements.''
We authorize $7.6 billion to the States to help public water systems
comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act and for helping local water
authorities solve the problem of source water pollution. That is on top
of $100
[[Page H9864]]
million for States to administer their own safe drinking water programs
and $80 million for new studies that tell us more about the health
effects of arsenic, radon and cryptosporidium, and how best we can
treat them.
Here in the District of Columbia we have seen in the last few weeks
why this legislation is so important. Here, in the Capital of the
richest, the strongest, the most technologically advanced Nation in the
history of the world, people cannot trust the water that they drink.
The water mains, hundreds of miles of them, are literally rotting away
underneath us. This legislation helps fix the problem, not just here in
the District of Columbia, but in cities and small towns from coast to
coast.
But that still is not all this measure does. That is because, once
this measure is signed into law, Americans will know more about the
water that they drink than ever before. We provide for 24-hour
notifications of violation. Today they have up to 2 weeks. We provide
for community right-to-know, a detailed summary provided to every
household telling them what is in the water that they drink.
Yes, this is fine legislation, legislation that reflects the kind of
bipartisan spirit of compromise that me have always tried to foster on
the Committee on Commerce. I said so at the conference, as others did,
but I said something else too. I noted then that this measure has
passed the Senate by a vote of 99 to nothing. I noted that it cleared
the House unanimously as well, passed by voice vote, and I predicted
that none of us, Democrat or Republican, House or Senate, would easily
explain to the folks back home why such a good measure, a measure that
cleared both houses unanimously, should be sacrificed because we could
not resolve the details. The past week we have endeavored to do just
that, to put our difference aside and reach common ground, and in the
week just past we did just that.
I am proud to have stood shoulder to shoulder with my Committee on
Commerce colleagues, Democrat and Republican alike, to defend the
integrity of the Committee on Commerce bill. We succeeded. The measure
before us reflects in virtually every respect that provisions that were
approved unanimously in the Committee on Commerce.
In virtually every respect, this measure echoes the provisions that
were developed in large measure because of the contributions of my good
friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], and my good friend,
the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman]. That is why I regret that
they have chosen not to sign the conference report.
Nonetheless, I submit that they will agree with me that even those
minor changes that have been adopted in conference actually have
improved the bill. Their argument does not focus on the core of the
bill, which they themselves worked on. Their argument is with the
provisions not within our jurisdiction, provisions incidentally that
were approved by this House by unanimous vote. I submit to my friends
on the other side respectfully that they should not let perfection be
the enemy of the good.
This legislation, my colleagues, is very, very good for the American
people. Together with the food safety measure now on the President's
desk, it will give this Congress two major pieces of environmental
legislation of which we can be proud. Indeed, it will give Bill Clinton
the first environmental accomplishments of his presidency.
Let us put the interest of the American people ahead of our own
differences. This measure is long overdue. Let us pass it today.
I am very pleased also to congratulate the other body, Senator
Chafee, Senator Kempthorne and, in particular, my own colleague, the
senior Senator from Virginia, John Warner, whose help was very
instrumental in bringing us where we are today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this conference cane up a day late and $725
million short. The old saying is, ``A day late and a penny short.'' We
are $725 million short and 2 days late. However, the $725 million that
should have gone for paying for safe drinking water for this Nation's
community water systems somehow got misplaced on the way to the floor
with this bill.
That is $725 million that should have been there to help the States
pay for what are now unfunded mandates created by this bill. It should
have gone for community water systems to pay for filtration and
disinfection plants. It should have funded a part of the grant to the
District of Columbia to restore the decrepit and unsafe water system of
this Nation's Capital.
What happened? That is the interesting story.
Well, it is a tale of speed, and it is a tale of greed. The speed, or
should I say the lack of it, and both occurred at unfortunate times,
with which the House leadership appointed the conferees made it
virtually impossible for the conference to complete its work in time to
secure the $725 million that was set aside to make the drinking water
of this Nation safe.
Let me explain further. The House has known since April that the 1996
appropriation for EPA included $725 million, which would be immediately
available for a new safe drinking water revolving loan fund, if the act
was authorized by July 31.
Under the leadership of my distinguished friend, and I want to pay
tribute to him, the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the
Committee on Commerce, the House passed without a dissenting vote a
strong, bipartisan safe drinking water bill on June 25. That left us a
total of 35 days to reconcile a Senate measure that passed that body,
noted for its slow movement last year.
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure added to the House
bill at the last minute some noteworthy porcine provisions, with the
blessing of the leadership. Then, whether due to inattention or the
intervention of the Speaker, the conferees on this bill were not
appointed until the week the bill passed, the next week or even the
next week. In fact, it took 22 days to appoint conferees. Worse, when
the conferees were appointed, the leadership added layers of complexity
by appointing from three committees. The Committee on Science latched
on to a variety of provisions, but their success pales in comparison to
their brethren at the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure desperately wanted
their no-priority, high-waste, who-cares-about-State-needs, election-
year, bringing-home-the-bacon, name-the-project-after-me, no shame pork
fund.
Their insatiable appetite did face one hurdle. The bill included
firewall provisions that provided they could not have their luau unless
and until the state drinking water revolving fund was capitalized at 75
percent of its appropriation, or $750 million.
Now, because I have dealt with the appetites of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure before, as have most of my
colleagues, we made a motion to instruct to make sure that the House
conferees would not forget this explicit commitment in the House-passed
bill. That passed unanimously through this body.
But guess what? In the closing days of the conference, with the
deadline staring us in the face, the conferees from the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure announced that they would not allow
the conference report to be filed unless and until the firewall was
removed.
In fact, at many points, the Senate offered to recede to the House on
these provisions, but the conferees on the part of the House; namely,
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, constantly and
consistently refused. The Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure would not accept their own provisions unless and until
the firewall was removed.
So yesterday, the Speaker gave in to their raid on the Treasury, and
the 75 percent trigger was removed to create a $175 million fund. Not
surprisingly, and in complete disregard for the numerous claims made by
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure porkmeisters during
the debate on my motion to instruct, the statement of
[[Page H9865]]
managers quite without shame earmarks the money for 24 projects, many
of which are in freshman and marginal Republican districts. Since there
is only one pot of money available for safe drinking water, the gain of
my pork-loving colleagues comes at the expense of the safe drinking
water revolving fund.
I would like my colleagues to know that this raid and this wonderful
pork is going to cost everybody except those Members who have been able
to dip their hands into this fund to come up with a wonderful little
helping of pork for their district, and it is going to come up without
any regard to the need of the public or to the questions of public
health and safety. It is simply going to be a short-stopping of funds,
a plundering of a fund which is inadequate to meet the total needs and
a fund which is absolutely necessary to assure the safety of the people
from unsafe, unhealthy and dangerous drinking water.
That is what is at issue. This is why it will be impossible for me to
support what had been a sound and fair piece of legislation, which is
now converted into pure pork for the benefit of a few people who are
happily situated.
Now, I want to make it plain that I think that taking care of
districts is a good thing. I think that getting necessary projects to
better the country is good. But I do not think that this kind of raid
falls even within that category. It lies simply in the area of seeking
special presents at the expense of all, and we will be submitting to my
colleagues a list of how your State, my colleagues, will be adversely
impacted by the events that have transpired previous to the bringing of
this bill to the House floor.
Mr. Speaker, I include that list for the Record.
DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND CAPITALIZATION GRANTS LOST BECAUSE
OF REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP'S DELAY ON S. 1316
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
of
State Grant amount available
dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA........................................... $41,827,400 6.03
TX........................................... 38,771,900 5.59
MI........................................... 32,984,000 4.75
NY........................................... 32,700,300 4.71
PA........................................... 29,441,200 4.24
NC........................................... 25,486,100 3.67
FL........................................... 24,943,600 3.59
OH........................................... 23,805,300 3.43
MN........................................... 23,259,900 3.35
WI........................................... 22,961,600 3.31
IL........................................... 21,279,400 3.07
WA........................................... 17,213,700 2.48
VA........................................... 16,272,200 2.34
NJ........................................... 15,445,900 2.23
AK........................................... 14,943,900 2.15
GA........................................... 14,245,400 2.05
IN........................................... 14,210,600 2.05
MO........................................... 12,080,400 1.74
CT........................................... 11,832,000 1.70
LA........................................... 11,286,000 1.63
OR........................................... 10,457,200 1.51
MD........................................... 9,749,900 1.40
OK........................................... 9,706,300 1.40
AZ........................................... 9,361,700 1.35
IA........................................... 9,316,900 1.34
CO........................................... 9,276,500 1.34
MS........................................... 9,105,200 1.31
MT........................................... 8,194,400 1.18
SC........................................... 8,191,900 1.18
MA........................................... 7,928,200 1.14
ID........................................... 7,825,000 1.13
KS........................................... 7,790,300 1.12
NH........................................... 7,602,300 1.10
NE........................................... 7,087,800 1.02
TN........................................... 7,061,400 1.02
NM........................................... 7,052,400 1.02
ME........................................... 6,993,500 1.01
RI........................................... 6,941,300 1.00
VT........................................... 6,941,300 1.00
PR........................................... 6,941,300 1.00
DC........................................... 6,941,300 1.00
DE........................................... 6,941,300 1.00
WV........................................... 6,941,300 1.00
AL........................................... 6,941,300 1.00
AR........................................... 6,941,300 1.00
ND........................................... 6,941,300 1.00
SD........................................... 6,941,300 1.00
UT........................................... 6,941,300 1.00
WY........................................... 6,941,300 1.00
HI........................................... 6,941,300 1.00
NV........................................... 6,941,300 1.00
KY........................................... 6,941,300 1.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the very able chairman of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to strongly support this legislation,
congratulate my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, particularly the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], chairman of the committee, the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Boehlert], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], as well
as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute], the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Wamp], and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez],
who were all very positive forces to help bring about the passage of
this very important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation improves source water quality. Our
interest in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is
essentially title 5, which deals with infrastructure.
I know the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], my dear friend, in
years past when he was chairman of the committee, had an extraordinary
ability to find elasticity in the jurisdiction of his committee. I
guess that is still happening today. However, it is very clear title 5
is under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. Indeed, those were the conferees, exclusive conferees.
Mr. Speaker, I am also quite surprised to hear the gentleman taking
umbrage at what we in our committee did, those of us who had
jurisdiction on both sides of the aisle, over this legislation. I am
particularly surprised to see him put pictures of porkers up there and
talk about specific projects, when indeed the Rouge River in his
district has had over $320 million earmarked in the past for projects,
and indeed in the current appropriation bill there is $20 million of
unauthorized appropriation. I guess we should be vigorously objecting
to $20 million that is earmarked in an appropriation bill for the
gentleman's congressional district when it is not even authorized.
So it seems to me fair is fair here, and I guess we better focus a
little more intently on some of these unauthorized projects. The good
news about this bill is that it provides a billion dollars a year in a
State revolving loan fund to finance State drinking water facilities;
$350 million a year for a national program for drinking water
infrastructure; a program for grants to Alaska and to the States along
the United States-Mexican border; a program for grants to the New York
City watershed, which is of extraordinary importance.
So, Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased that we have been able to
support this. It is a national bill. It is a bill that really makes the
American public a real winner because we now have an excellent new
drinking water law that provides assistance, not only to specific
regions, but to the Nation as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to support this very powerful environmental legislation.
{time} 1215
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
I just want to note that because the Republican leadership delayed
the consideration of this bill past the Wednesday deadline to
accommodate the gentleman from Pennsylvania's taste for pork, his State
lost $26.4 million which would have been used to improve the safety of
the drinking water for its 12 million citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes and 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].
(Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, before I focus on my substantive concerns
with S. 1316, I want to recognize some of the Members and staff who
have made invaluable contributions to this legislation: Congressmen Jim
Saxton, Sherwood Boehlert, and Frank Pallone deserve our thanks for
their efforts on the right-to-know provision and Nita Lowey, Bart
Stupak, and Sherrod Brown must be commended for their committed
advocacy for the bill's estrogenic screening program. I also want to
thank the House Democratic staff, Dick Frandsen and Bill Tyndall, Greg
Dotson and Phil Schiliro for their work on this legislation.
In many respects, this is a good bill and one we should be proud to
support. We worked hard on a bipartisan basis to resolve difficult
issues. It was clear to me that both houses and both parties were
committed to passing strong and balanced legislation. But I cannot
support the conference report that is before us today. I will vote no
for two reasons:
First, the State revolving fund, which is one of the most important
provisions in this legislation, has just lost over $700 million in
guaranteed
[[Page H9866]]
funding because Congress missed the July 31 deadline. This is only half
a bill without the SRF, and half a bill will not solve our drinking
water problems.
There is absolutely no reason why the guaranteed money had to be
lost.
The second reason I will not support this legislation is that pork
projects took priority over protecting the public health and assuring
drinking water standards. The reason this bill made sense is that we
took the recommendation of President Clinton to have a revolving fund
that would provide money to the water systems in this country to use to
make the capital expenditures so they could have drinking water that
would meet health standards. That was the carrot.
The stick in this legislation was if they did not do the things that
were necessary, funds would be withheld from those water systems.
The bill made sense. The revolving fund was supposed to be
distributed based on priorities and merit to those systems that needed
those funds. That was the legislation that came out of our Committee on
Commerce.
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure decided that they
wanted $50 million for special projects to be earmarked to receive
their money, whether they deserved it or not. When the House
bill passed, we incorporated a feature saying maybe some of these pork
projects are inevitable. But let us be assured that the revolving fund
is appropriated, at least 75 percent of it, before we start funding
these special pork projects.
That was the House position. We had a unanimous vote of the House to
support that position. And we went into meetings with the Senate and
the Senate agreed with that position in conference. But then the
chairman of the Transportation Committee insisted that he have his
projects funded before the revolving fund would be funded. He insisted
that his projects be funded in advance of the revolving fund.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership should have taken the
opportunity to show some leadership. They should have said if we could
not do this before the deadline, let us extend the deadline, as we
recommended by the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman Dingell. The
Republican leadership would not assert their role.
The second thing is that the congressional Republican leadership
should have said no to the chairman of the Transportation Committee.
You cannot get your pork barrel projects funded without the revolving
fund being funded first. And the Republican leadership would not say no
to pork.
Then the Republican leadership should have said to the Committee on
Appropriations, we want to make sure that we are going to safeguard
this money for the drinking water fund. And the Republican leadership
would not say no.
If we are going to deal with the problems of fiscal responsibility in
this country, the leadership of this House must say no to pork. And if
we are going to deal with the drinking water problems in this Nation
and have a revolving fund, the leadership must say that fund will be
available.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of sadness that I have to
stand here, after having worked so hard on this bill, and to announce
that I will vote against this bill. I will vote against it because the
bill does not work if the revolving fund is not appropriated.
I feel that a miscarriage of fairness has taken place. I will yield
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster]. I want to point out,
before I yield to him, that one of the projects that was earmarked for
special consideration was in his district and it was mandated that the
Corps of Engineers carry out this project, even though the Corps of
engineers said to us they did not think it was a good project.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, that is not accurate. There is no mandate
that the corps carry out that provision, No. 1.
No. 2, there is nothing in this legislation that says the grants in
title V will be funded first. No. 3, your commerce conferees violated
the instructions of this House yourselves. You did not uphold the
instructions and, most important, you sent us a letter to our committee
asking us to earmark $7 million for a Santa Monica project for
yourself, for yourself, for your own project.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman does not know what he is
talking about.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I have a letter right here.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely incorrect. Maybe
it is better to be on the offensive rather than the defensive, but the
gentleman is being offensive when he incorrectly states the
circumstances.
The House voted unanimously to insist that his project do not get
funded until 75 percent of the revolving fund is appropriated. That was
disregarded and it means that we have no revolving fund to make the
drinking water law work. I regret it and I think that we should
unfortunately vote against this bill.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, we have right here the proposed Committee
on Commerce offer which was that you backed away from the 75-percent
trigger with regard to New York City and Alaska. So you violated the
instructions of the House, No. 1.
No. 2, I have a letter from my good friend from California, dated
March 29 of this year, asking for us to earmark $7.5 million for a
project in his district.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Is it not true that the Senate receded to the House to
provide for the 75-percent funding and then the gentleman from
Pennsylvania objected?
Mr. SHUSTER. Reclaiming my time, they did not yield on that simple
point. They threw other provisions in as well which we could not
accept.
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of North Carolina). The Chair
would ask the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] if he could remove
the item from the table.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to remove it, if the Chair
can tell me what is objectionable here?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair believes it is a breach of decorum
of the House.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, what is the breach? I am delighted to
comply with the wishes of the Chair, but I am trying to understand what
is it, where is the breach?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair believes that displaying the pig
in front of the honored ranking member of the Committee on Commerce is
a breach of decorum of the House and would ask that it be removed.
Mr. DINGELL. You mean this little pig, Mr. Speaker, is a breach of
decorum of the House?
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no objection, if the gentleman wants
to be identified with a pig in front of him. That is perfectly all
right to me.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to comply with the wishes of
the Chair. I just want to know what it is that the Chair is finding
inconsistent with the rules of the House. I would observe that this pig
would probably be more suitably displayed on the Republican committee
table, but if the Chair desires that this pig be removed, I will, of
course, remove it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair appreciates the gentleman's
removal of it.
The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] is recognized.
Mr. DINGELL. I have no desire to speak at this time, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman wish to yield time?
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, am I instructed by the Chair to remove this
pig or to keep it?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes, the gentleman should remove it. Does
the gentleman wish to yield time?
Mr. DINGELL. Not at this time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], distinguished
chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment of the Committee
on Commerce.
(Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
[[Page H9867]]
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, let us get to the bottom line here. The
conference has done its work and has produced a bill which will meet
all of our objectives, every single one. First we have reformed and
reauthorized one of our Nation's key environmental statutes. We have
fundamentally changed the way the statute works and the way that the
Safe Drinking Water Act allocates responsibilities between the Federal
Government and the States.
Second, as opposed to previous mandates emanating from the ivory
tower that is Washington--we are actually paying for new regulations up
front. The conference agreement provides authorization for a $7.6
billion State revolving loan fund to meet both past deficiencies and
new requirements.
I think this bill makes it clear that we are no longer doing business
as usual in Washington. Instead, we are producing legislation which
advances the public health while making our laws and regulations more
flexible, more sensible, and more responsive to local conditions.
The old Safe Drinking Water Act simply did not work well enough.
Evidence of that fact is no more than a few steps away at any drinking
water tap in the U.S. Capitol. The smell of extra chlorine lets you
know we have a problem.
I believe we have a large part of the solution in this bill and
expect that appropriations will be made available, starting in October,
to provide money to the State Revolving Loan Fund. In addition, the
conference report authorizes new studies on the health effects of
drinking water contaminants, the biomedical effects of contaminants in
the human body and on the occurrence of waterborne disease.
These efforts should help reassure all Americans that we are taking
problems, such as those experienced by the District of Columbia this
year and Milwaukee in 1993 very seriously. The final legislation will
enhance both our knowledge and our ability to take corrective measures.
But these efforts are only part of the solution that this conference
report offers. Under the legislation, EPA will have to ``right size''
its regulations--identifying affordable technology which can be used by
public water systems as small as 25 customers. In addition, public
water systems are offered relief from requirements which only increase
their costs without a resulting benefit.
We also are promoting the establishment of State programs to train
public water system operators and to help ensure that both new and
existing systems have the technical, financial, and managerial capacity
to meet drinking water standards. Altogether, we are telling the States
to develop individual solutions to their local problems and are
rejecting the notion that each and every regulation must come from EPA
headquarters.
But more than that--I believe this legislation will help to reassure
people that the water which flows from their faucets will not cause
them harm. In this legislation, we have accelerated public notice of
drinking water violations and incorporated a new consumer confidence
report to keep people informed, on an annual basis, of the quality of
their water.
All of these things are accomplished in a bill which literally pays
for itself. According to the Congressional Budget Office, and I quote,
``the bill would change the Federal drinking water program in ways that
would lower the costs to public water systems of complying with
existing and future requirements. On balance, CBO estimates that the
bill would likely result in significant net savings to State and local
governments.''
Mr. Speaker, this legislation passed my subcommittee on a unanimous
vote of 24 to 0. It then passed our full committee by a vote of 42-0
and was approved by the full House without dissent. This conference
report represents a further refinement and improvement of the
underlying statute. I urge its immediate adoption.
{time} 1230
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, it should be pointed out that because of
delay of the Republican leadership and consideration of this bill past
the Wednesday deadline, the gentleman from Florida, his State lost $25
million to improve the safe drinking water for its 13\1/2\ million
citizens.
I was a member of the conferees on this report and my colleagues know
I was very proud of the bill we have. It is a great public policy bill.
But to meet our needs we need $8.6 million to provide for all the Safe
Drinking Water Act projects in this Nation. But instead, we found out
that pigs do fly and there is such a thing as a pig in a poke because
we have lost money because of delays, and we have also lost money
because of the earmarking that went onto this bill, something we
strongly objected to.
For the past 4 years some of us have tried to come to this Congress
to knock off the pork-like projects. Let my colleagues' projects stand
on the merit of their project and not on who sits on a committee. That
is the way it should be. But no, we cannot have that.
As my colleagues know, we made a historic move this week. We did
welfare reform, we did minimum wage earlier today, and we did some
health care, but we just cannot seem to get away from those old bad
habits we just cannot resist.
Later today we are going to do a motion to recommit. The motion to
recommit is going to say let us knock off the pork projects, let us let
the legislation, let our colleagues' water projects stand on the
merits, project against project. I am proud to put up my district
against any district here on the projects.
Let us not do this earmarking. It is wrong. It is contrary to why we
came here. I hope each and every Member will look closely at our motion
to recommit and knock off the earmarks. Let us break the bad habits
that lead us to deficits that we struggled to get under control.
We can do it if we would work together, but to take the needs of this
country and for certain Members to carve out their own exception so
they can have something to go back home and campaign on is wrong.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Boehlert], a member of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to watch some of the
people who are complaining so vociferously against the enlightened
action of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The same
people, one after another, come before me as chairman of the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment and asked for this
project and this project and this project.
As for my distinguished colleague from Michigan, he is the graddaddy
of them all. Do my colleagues know that little pig he had on this desk?
That piggy is named River Rouge. Do my colleagues want to know why?
Because he got $325 million over 6 years earmarked for River Rouge. He
is so found of that that he needs that little piggy, River Rouge. Glad
to see the gentleman bring it here; good to see it once again.
Let me tell my colleagues, today we are taking a historic step toward
improving the quality of the water we drink and the environment on
which we all depend. The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 is
the most significant environmental legislation since President George
Bush signed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 on December 11, 1990.
That historic legislation that President Bush signed, the gentleman
from California [Mr. Waxman] and I were teamed up and we worked very
hard to have an acid rain provision in that bill.
I am sorry we do not completely come eye-to-eye on this bill today
but, quite frankly, my colleagues know what the drill is. It is a
matter of jurisdiction, and the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell,
does not like the fact that the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Shuster, came up with a good idea in the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, and Mr. Shuster has designed a program that we are
warmly embracing.
Now my colleagues have got to accept the fact that other people have
ideas and other committees other than the Committee on Commerce have
some jurisdiction. It is a reality of life that we have to accept. I
have, and I think most of our conferees have.
[[Page H9868]]
The conference report before us today embodies most environmental
aspects of the drinking water bills produced by the House and Senate,
and I am proud to identify with them. The drinking water provisions
before us are pro-environment, pro-State and local government and pro-
business.
Every major environmental group in the Nation, the Sierra Club, the
Audubon Society, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the list
goes on and on, strongly supports the Safe Drinking Water Act
amendments of 1996, and do my colleagues want to know why? It is
because we provide $7.6 billion through the year 2003 for improvements
to our Nation's crumbling drinking water infrastructure. We provide up
to $50 million annually in grants to assist America's poorest
communities in providing safe, dependable drinking water. We provide
critical new information to consumers on drinking water quality through
community right-to-know provisions.
This is a good bill.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLILEY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. My friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak], who
is railing against earmarks, has a request before our committee to
earmark $4 million for the Grand Maris Harbor for himself.
Mr. BOEHLERT. The gentleman from Pennsylvania proved my point.
Mr. Speaker, I tell my colleague this: If you are for a cleaner,
healthier, safer environment, and I think you all are, support this
important legislation.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I only want to correct the record. The
environmental groups that had supported this legislation have withdrawn
their support because they know this law will not work unless we have
an appropriation for that revolving fund.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I do not have a dog in this fight and I
certainly do not have a pig in this bill, but I did come to this floor
to hopefully argue the merits of this bill and to support this bill,
and I will argue that there are three good reasons to support this
bill.
However, there are two good reasons not to support this bill, and
after coming along so quickly with welfare reform and health care
reform it is a travesty. We have not only hit a speed bump here but we
have gone down into a ravine, with $725 million being lost because this
bill was not done in a bipartisan way, and with the pork that is in
here with such things as studies and multimedia programs.
I will recommend to most of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that we
support this bill with those two big flaws in it.
First of all, this gives the EPA better flexibility and our small
municipalities better flexibility for alternative and affordable water
systems; second, we use risk and cost-benefit analysis, something that
I have been a strong advocate for on the Committee on Science for
several years. Third, we give better right-to-know for our customers.
When there are contaminants in the tap water, every year the water
systems must report on those problems.
Now I was a conferee on this conference, Mr. Speaker, and I am very
saddened by the fact that we have lost $725 million and the pigs have
been added into this bill. I will reluctantly encourage a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Idaho [Mr. Crapo], a member of the committee.
(Mr. CRAPO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to come here and support this
bipartisan bill. It has been crafted with strong support from both
parties throughout the process. I am a little saddened to see the
tenure of the debate today because of the issues that have been raised,
but let me talk about why this bill is so important for us to move
forward.
Many of my colleagues know I come from a rural State and, like many
of the environmental mandates imposed on our States, the original Safe
Drinking Water Act was crafted without the careful consideration of the
ramifications that cookie-cutter solutions imposed by Washington will
have on the States, the counties and cities across our country.
Idaho is home to about a million people, and of the 2,700 water
systems in my State, all but 12 have less than 10,000 users. Again and
again and again across our State people have asked me to let us use the
kinds of scientifically based solutions that will make our drinking
water clean without forcing us to spend so much money on the cookie-
cutter solutions that do not work. This bill does that.
This bill makes it so that no longer will the EPA be forced to
regulate from Washington in a way that does not make sense. We will not
have to continue to look for contaminants that do not exist on our
water, and we can focus on the things that will work.
The EPA has estimated that the cost of cleaning up the clean water
and the systems in our country will be about $8 billion, and this bill
provides a revolving State loan fund that will give us the ability to
bring those resources to bear to clean the water across our country.
It provides technical assistance for rural water systems like those
found in my State, Idaho.
It provides for risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, and it
assures that the public will get clear and accurate information about
the effects of contaminations in their population and subgroups and the
health risks that they may face.
This is the kind of bill that we ought to be linking arms to move
forward to pass, and I encourage Members from both sides of the aisle
to put aside our differences. Let us again step forward in this
Congress and make some significant progress for the clean drinking
water of America.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, Members of this Congress are hired to do a
job. We are not hired to get reelected. When one is in the majority,
one of the jobs they have to do is, they have to get bills to the floor
on time.
Now there are few things more important to Americans than the quality
of the water they drink. In my hometown, Portland, OR has worked very
hard to get safe drinking water, but the job of the Congress is to take
care of the details. It is to see that our work gets down on time, an
the devil is in the details.
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership took so long to get this
bill to the floor that we have lost, we have lost $275 million for
projects. Why? Why was there this delay? Well, I would think it is
politics. Oregon, my home State, has lost as a real consequence $10.5
million.
I would say let us not worry about pork projects for people who maybe
need to get reelected. Let us rather worry about clean drinking water
for the people who live in this country, our American citizens.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster]. He indicated that I had a Grand Maris
project in this bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. He
should have been honest with the American people.
Now this is a Safe Drinking Water Act. What the gentleman talked
about is a break wall. Now I do not know last night if, in expending
their definition of pork under Safe Drinking Water Act, they are now
adding break walls.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I never said
it was in this bill. It is in another bill the gentleman has before our
committee.
Mr. STUPAK. Would the gentleman like us to take down his words so he
can remember what he said?
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I did not say it was in this bill.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Bilbray], a member of the committee.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I am very impressed with my colleagues who
are concerned about the effective and efficient use of taxpayers'
funds. I think all of America will be very impressed with the fact that
Congress is finally very, very sensitive on that issue. But let me
remind my colleagues, if we defeat this bill here
[[Page H9869]]
today we will lose over $500 million that can be used for safeguarding
our drinking water.
Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here today is having a new
Safe Drinking Water Act that fulfills the promises of the old act. One
example is that there are many assumptions that the voters and the
citizens of America make about their drinking water.
One of them was the fact that when one bought a bottle of water, that
the Federal Government assured that it was as clean as what was coming
out of the tap. Under the old act that assurance was not a reality.
Under the new act that assurance will be in reality.
Now, our bottled water in America has been very good, but I think the
assurance that it is, and will remain good is what the new act is all
about. We are fulfilling the promises of the old act with the new act.
{time} 1415
Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to live in the community of San Diego,
which, according to every major environmental group that has
investigated it, has some of the safest drinking water in the entire
United States. It is too bad, though, that when I fly across the
country every week and come to work in Washington, I cannot be assured
that in Washington, here in the Nation's Capital, where the Federal
Government has its greatest responsibility, our drinking water is not
as safe as it is on the Pacific coast.
I would ask that my colleagues find reasons to improve on the old, to
be able to move forward in a progressive way. This bill is the
progressive bill, the bill that fulfills the promises of the old that
never were fulfilled. Today it is time to move forward. Let us not find
excuses to walk away from our responsibilities. Let us do what is right
and approve this new, progressive Safe Drinking Water Act.
I rise in strong support of this progressive and bipartisan bill,
which will have an enormously beneficial effect on the health and
environment of the American people. As a conferee on this landmark
legislation, I can tell you that this conference report on the Safe
Drinking Water Act [SDWA] marks a major shift away from the regulatory
status quo of placing undue value and emphasis on the regulation
itself, toward what the practical effect of the regulation actually is
on the public health and our natural resources. This is as it should
be.
It is this kind of outcome-driven and science-based environmental
policy-setting that I have been proud to be a part of in this Congress.
This is the kind of process in which I was used to operating during my
time in local government, and the results of this cooperative and
effective policy-making which we see here today will allow us to better
serve the public health needs of the American people.
It has been a privilege for me to have been able to play a close role
in strengthening and improving such an important statute as the SDWA.
These amendments will provide for sensible and much-needed reforms in
how the SDWA is implemented.
H.R. 3604 will help to refocus EPA's priorities and resources toward
those contaminants which present the greatest and most immediate threat
to public health, provide EPA and local water authorities with greater
flexibility in implementing the improved SDWA law, and place new
emphasis on ensuring that public water systems have the necessary
technical, managerial, and financial resources available to comply with
the SDWA.
Mr. Speaker, this also marks a significant achievement in our ability
to recognize and address flaws or gaps in our existing environmental or
public health strategies. Laws such as the SDWA were clearly well-meant
at the time of their inception--in this case, the 1972-era SDWA has not
been reauthorized since 1986.
However, the passage of time invariably exposes weaknesses or
shortcomings in the strongest of our statutes, and we need to recognize
and respond to this. In the past, it has often been easier to confront
problems by simply blaming a law, instead of working together to
determine whether the law in question is being properly implemented, or
whether it is still effective in serving its intended purpose. These
laws need to be as dynamic and flexible as the rapidly changing
environments we intend for them to protect, and the people who live in
them.
This means that occasionally such laws must be reexamined and
renewed, in order to ensure that their original goals are still being
achieved.
I have always believed that we ought not to cling to the conventional
wisdom that our public health and environment laws are ``set in
stone'', and incapable of being improved with the application of new
knowledge. In order to maintain their effectiveness, we have the
responsibility to see to it that when modern science and technology can
be applied to improve these laws, we take the appropriate action to do
so.
Many of our ``crown jewel'' environmental laws were written over 20
years ago, and it is incumbent upon us in to make these needed
improvements when necessary. With this comprehensive reauthorization,
this Congress accomplished a challenging but long-unachievable task on
behalf of all of our constituents nationwide. I want to commend my
chairmen, Mr. Bliley and Mr. Bilirakis, and my other colleagues who
worked hard together, in a bipartisan manner, to help make this happen.
In addition to the sound science-based foundation of this bill, I am
particularly proud of section 305 of the bill, which addresses health
standards for bottled water. Section 305 is a refinement of
legislation, H.R. 2601, which I introduced earlier in this Congress. My
language will simply require that any EPA regulation which sets a
maximum contaminant level for tap water, and any FDA regulation setting
a standard of quality for bottled water for the same contaminant, take
effect at the same time. If the FDA does not promulgate a regulation
within a realistic time frame as established by section 305, the
regulation established by the EPA for that element in tap water will be
considered the applicable regulation for the same element in bottled
water. This will provide consumers with the health assurances that the
water they can purchase off the shelf meets at least the same standards
as their tap water. I have a letter from the International Bottled
Water Association which elaborates on the benefits of this provision,
which I would like entered in the Record.
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to conclude with an observation. In my hometown
of San Diego, my family and my constituents are very fortunate to
already enjoy an extremely high standard of quality in our drinking
water, in fact a recent study by a national environmental group found
that water systems in the San Diego region reported zero health
advisories over the last three years.
By comparison, the same study found that an alarmingly high
percentage of water systems in some regions of the country--including
Washington, DC--had reported health advisories or compliance failures
during the same time period. The Safe Drinking Water Act amendments we
will pass today, and which will soon be signed into law, will
strengthen and improve the weak links in the existing statute, and in
so doing will help bring these high levels of health and environmental
quality which we appreciate in San Diego to other communities
nationwide.
Again, and I can't emphasize it enough, this is a progressive step
forward, away from a 1970's-era process which places higher value on
process and regulation itself, towards a more responsible and outcome-
based approach which focuses on the product that is generated.
This will help us reinforce our common goals of better serving the
public health needs of the American people, and providing us with a
cleaner and safer overall environment, which is something we ought to
be ever mindful of, and never take for granted.
International Bottled
Water Association,
Alexandria, VA, June 25, 1996.
Hon. Brian Bilbray,
Longworth House Office Building, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Rep. Bilbray: The International Bottled Water
Association, which represents over 85 percent of all bottled
water sold in the United States, would like to thank you for
your help in drafting the bottled water provision of the Safe
Drinking Water Act legislation. We are also grateful to the
committee staff who developed this improved version of the
Senate bottled water provision in cooperation with your
legislative director, Dave Schroeder.
Our industry strongly supports the principal objective of
this provision, i.e., to require that any EPA regulation
setting a maximum contaminant level for tap water and any FDA
regulation setting a standard of quality for bottled water
for the same contaminant take effect at the same time.
One in six households relies on bottled water as their
source of drinking water. There are 430 companies producing
bottled water in the United States with annual sales
estimated at $3.4 billion, making bottled water one of the
fastest growing segments of the beverage industry.
Bottled water is regulated by the FDA, the states and
through IBWA's own model code. The bottled water provision
will ensure that a FDA standard for a contaminant in bottled
water is set in a timely manner and is no less protective of
the public health than the EPA regulation for the same
contaminant in tap water.
We look forward to seeing the Safe Drinking Water Act
legislation signed into law this year. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sylvia E. Swanson,
Executive Vice President.
[[Page H9870]]
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo].
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of our committee
for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind our colleague, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Bilbray], that because the Republican leadership
delayed consideration of this bill past the Wednesday deadline, that
our great State of California, the greatest State in the Union, has
lost almost $42 million to improve the safety of the drinking water for
our 31 million citizens.
Mr. Speaker, there are many that begin their remarks with, and I
remember a famous politician that said, ``There you go again.'' There
goes the Congress again. We had a darned good bill that was a
bipartisan bill, worked up and worked out over a period of time by the
members of the Committee on Commerce. I was proud that the Committee on
Commerce rose above what I thought were election year politics to craft
a workable solution to a very, very important problem in our country.
That was then, and this is now.
Here is a list. Here is a list of the pork. We are mixing pork with
water. Here is the list. These are some of the most vulnerable
Republican freshmen in the House of Representatives. Now there is a
rush to mix pork with water. It is being taken out of the revolving
fund, the capitalization grants for States, $725 million, and we have
mixed the pork in with it. Where are the reformers in the Congress to
rush to this floor? Where are the reformers in the Congress coming to
the floor and saying, ``This does not belong in this bill''? It is
placing at risk one of the most important issues in our Nation.
Every American should be able to travel anyplace in this country and
rely on safe drinking water. Instead, this has been bollixed up with
pork. So this is not a safe drinking water bill. Now because of the
Speaker and the Republican leadership, they have turned it into a safe
reelection bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against it. This is not
what the bill should be.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], a member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
When all else fails, Mr. Speaker, read the bill. The findings section
of the Safe Drinking Water Act says:
The Congress finds that the Federal Government commits to
maintaining and improving its partnership with the States in
the administration and implementation of the Safe Drinking
Water Act. States play a central role in the implementation
of safe drinking water programs and need increased financial
resources and appropriate flexibility to ensure the prompt
and effective implementation of safe drinking water programs.
Under the rubric of States come cities. Cities are entities of the
States. What we are doing here is helping cities deal with the problems
of providing clean and safe drinking water for their people.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have a little friend to bring with me down here
to the podium, but I do have an example. Just about 4 years ago, the
people in the city of Milwaukee were frightened out of their wits by an
attack that hospitalized thousands and affected 400,000 people with
abdominal pain, diarrhea, dysentery, and caused 131 deaths when an
attack of cryptosporidium found in the drinking water was unable to be
cleansed by the drinking water treatment system of the city of
Milwaukee.
If ever there were a red flag on the horizon for America to wake up
and deal effectively with both the standards and the infrastructure for
providing safe drinking water for our people, that was the wake-up
call. This legislation originated in the 103d Congress, moved out of
our Committee on Public Works and Transportation, did not make it
through the Congress; but what we have today is an adaptation of that
legislation.
I simply want to emphasize that, while there is a great deal of talk
about specific designation of projects, that is in the report language.
It is not in the bill. We do this regularly in numerous pieces of
legislation. Statements of managers in conference reports make specific
references. This is not law, this is an exhortation of examples of the
kinds of projects that need to be done and communities that need to be
helped. We have rendered that judgment. I urge my colleagues, this is a
fine bipartisan piece of legislation. Support the bill.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
(Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, there was a bipartisan
agreement on giving EPA the authority it needs to ensure the safety of
the drinking water. It would have guaranteed the public the right to
know if their drinking water was safe. It would have required EPA to
issue regulations to prevent deadly microbial contamination of public
drinking water supplies. It would have prohibited the use of lead
pipes, solder, and flux in the installation and repair of any public
water system, as well as repair of any facility connected to that
public water system.
Unfortunately, these are not the things my Republican colleagues care
most about. Instead, at the very last minute, and despite the strong
opposition of Democratic Members and the administration, they have
turned the safe drinking water conference into the biggest pork barrel
this House has seen in years.
In clear violation of the House's instructions to the conferees, the
Republican conferees have in fact earmarked $175 million for low-
priority pork projects. The conference report forces the EPA to fund
25, 25 earmarked projects, most of which are in the districts of
Republican freshmen and other Republicans in marginal districts. What
does this tell the American people about the Republican majority in
this House and the environment? It tells them that the only way
Republicans can support environmental legislation is if it is laden
with pork that will help their politically vulnerable Members return to
their seats in Congress and keep pork chops on their own tables.
They don't care whether EPA has the authority to combat deadly
microbial organisms like cryptosporidium in the drinking water
supplies. Last year, Republican Members voted for legislation to
prohibit EPA from even working on, much less issuing a rule to keep
deadly microbes, like cryptosporidium, out of drinking water.
It was on February 24, 1995, my Democratic colleagues and I offered a
motion to recommit the regulatory moratorium bill. The only thing the
motion to recommit would have done was to exempt the microbial
prevention rule from the moratorium.
The motion was defeated by my Republican colleagues. The vote was 172
yeas and 250 nays. Two hundred and twenty-six Republican Members voted
``no,'' while only one, I repeat, only one Republican Member voted
``yes.''
This is how Republicans vote when the question is simply whether or
not we work for safe drinking water. They oppose it, almost
unanimously.
Mr. Speaker, in 1993 an outbreak of the deadly microbe
cryptosporidium poisoned the water supply of Milwaukee, WI, making
400,000 people in that city sick and killing over 100 other people.
Surveys also showed that cryptosporidium was a problem in municipal
water supplies all over the country, not just in Milwaukee.
In addition, last year, water here in Washington had such high levels
of bacteria, including E coli, that the public had to boil their water.
This year, children and the elderly were advised to refrain from
drinking it.
The public is rightfully mad. They are demanding better protection
from their Government--protection of their health and safety, not
protection of the political careers of freshmen Republican Members.
It is time for us all to do what is right for the people we serve,
simply because it is the right thing to do and not because we want some
project to talk about at election time.
It is time for this Congress to get on with doing the things that
matter: keeping deadly microbes out of our drinking water; keeping
bacteria and pesticides out of the meat, poultry and food we eat; and
keeping cancer-causing chemicals out of the air and water.
The sooner my Republican colleagues devote their attentions to these
fundamental public needs, rather than election year pork, the safer and
healthier all Americans will be.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] to discuss the subject of
pork.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I think I want to thank the distinguished
gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure Democrats, I want to urge
[[Page H9871]]
support for this bill. Our committee had sole jurisdiction over title
IV, which provides grants for needy communities all over this country
to meet their drinking water needs. Money for projects under this title
is available for every area of the country. It is funding for drinking
water projects for communities that badly need these funds.
As a conferee on this title, Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Shuster, and the gentleman from
New York, Chairman Boehlert, who negotiated with the Senate and
carefully crafted this compromise on this section of the bill. I want
to urge support for the bill and opposition to the motion to recommit.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp].
(Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the safe drinking
water conference report.
Mr. Speaker, as vice chairman of the Water Resources and Environment
Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,
I know that among the most important items we have considered in this
104th Congress is the Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization. This has
already been an active week, and we have seen just how productive our
majority can be when we work with our colleagues across the aisle to do
the Nation's business, the people's business, on behalf of all those
who sent us here. If we are to see progress in our environmental laws
to give us cleaner, safer, healthier water, we must work in a timely
and bipartisan manner. That is what we have done, with the help of some
dedicated staff from both our committees and the other body.
I have been especially interested in the area of providing safe
drinking water supplies to communities in need. While we have debated
some important national policy items this year in both Chambers, and
I'm sure we will again in the remaining days of the 104th Congress,
nothing we do is more important to the individuals residing in
districts across this country than ensuring their ability to drink
clean, pure, safe water. As I hear from the people in my district so
often, this is ``where the rubber meets the road'' on our national
water policy.
One last note about meeting our most pressing local needs: in
communities where there is no reliable supply of water--either due to
contamination of their wells from natural causes or human activity or
because of other circumstances beyond local residents' control--our
constituents don't think that getting help hooking up to a nearby
public water system is anything more than fulfilling our responsibility
to provide for their health and safety. Every community with needs like
that should have a chance to look for help from this bill, and priority
should be given to those in the most urgent state of need.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, Chairman Shuster and Chairman Bliley, and my
other fellow conferees, I appreciate being given the opportunity to
work with you and everyone on this conference committee to lend a hand
to shaping this legislation. East Tennessee--and particularly
Chattanooga--has a reputation for being pro-active in finding solutions
to our environmental problems and working together as a community to
promote sound, scientific research in many areas, but especially in the
area of water. I've pledged to the people I represent to make water
quality a top priority while I'm in Congress, and participating in this
conference has been a great help to me in understanding these complex
issues even better.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Boehlert].
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I wish to make four points. This is inside
baseball.
Point No. 1, in response to the gentlewoman from California, the
conference was not delayed by inaction on the part of any Republican.
As has been accurately reported in National Journal's Congress Daily,
the conference was delayed because two Members, the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman],
objected and refused to sign the conference agreement.
Point No. 2, this is very important, the dollars that are claimed to
have been lost I am convinced will not be lost, because every Member of
this body and the other body wants to make certain that that 24-hour
delay does not in any way jeopardize the funding that we need for safe
drinking water.
Point No. 3, the total amount in dispute is one-quarter of 1 percent
of the total amount of money funded in this bill.
Point No. 4, the grants program we are talking about is to help needy
communities who are striving to provide a cleaner, healthier, safer
environment for their constituents by improving their water system.
That is what this program is all about.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to give this bill the support it
deserves.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
(Mr. MINGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, manipulation of the conference committee
process and deadlines to take moneys from general funds from all States
to finance specifically named projects for a select few for their
political advantage is wrong. It is reprehensible.
The Pork Busters Coalition cannot object strongly enough. Leadership
may change, the abuse of the process goes on.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Bilirakis].
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to make two points here, and in a way I
suppose at least one has already been made.
First, we are not losing money today here, as people on the other
side are saying. It is unfortunate, we have all worked so well together
on this piece of legislation, and all of a sudden we are throwing
stones at each other. It is just a terrible thing to see.
We are not losing money today, because the States could not possibly
have been prepared to use the money effective yesterday, which is when
this thing was supposed to go into effect. We are not talking about the
States sitting there basically just waiting for this money to start
putting it into effect right off the bat. It is impossible.
What we are doing today, of course, is granting the legal authority
to spend the $7.6 billion on safe drinking water. Actually providing
this money, as we all know, but nobody seems to be saying it, is the
job of the Committee on Appropriations, as it always is. Can we guess
what the Committee on Appropriations is going to do in forthcoming
years? I think not.
Second, my colleagues complained rather loudly about so-called pork.
They do not talk about the 99.75 percent of the bill that they agree
with. Let the record show that the funding under attack here represents
less than one-quarter of 1 percent of all funds authorized.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].
Mr. KLINK. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr.
Speaker.
I have grave concerns, Mr. Speaker, about the fact that it does
appear, from everything I have said, and I am just talking to counsel,
now, that we have indeed lost $725 million that could have been used to
clean up the drinking water of this Nation.
When we take a look at the amounts of moneys different States have
lost, California, almost $42 million; Texas, almost $39 million; my own
State of Pennsylvania, $28.5 million. We could use that money to clean
this up. I think what they are saying on the other side is, ``Trust us,
we will figure out a way to fix it.''
The fact of the matter is that the Speaker did not appoint the
conferees in time to get this bill done. There is a pattern of this
which really is very bothersome to me.
Earlier this week we brought out the fact, and I hope Members on both
sides of the aisle will note, that Members are not having their bills
paid in their offices. Take a look. For the first time in the history
of this institution, in June, your rent payments were not made. That
costs us credibility, it costs us money, it costs every Member in this
office. Now we are not appointing conferees in time, so the States of
this country do not in fact have tens of millions of dollars that they
normally would have in order to clean up this water.
When we were doing the contract on America we were marching through,
the trains were running on time. Now all of a sudden it comes time for
Congress to either pay its bills, pass legislation on time, or lose
three-quarters
[[Page H9872]]
of a billion dollars, and we cannot do it on time.
{time} 1300
How can you run this country when you cannot run this Congress? That
is the question that needs to be asked today.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago the House freshmen came to
Washington to carry out a revolution. They promised to balanced the
budget, to slash wasteful spending, to end pork-barrel spending. Now, 2
years later, two unsuccessful Government shutdowns later, the freshmen
are running scared.
The voters have said no to Medicare cuts, no to education cuts, no to
mean and extreme programs dealing with the environment, no to the
Gingrich revolution. So what do the freshmen do now in their desperate
attempt to save their own political hides? They attach $350 million for
pork-barrel projects for themselves in a clean drinking water bill
while more important programs, of course, are going to suffer in the 50
States where the money should have been spent.
So here is what we have:
One little piggy goes to Iowa; one little piggy program stays home in
Ohio; one little piggy program gets money for Washington State, and
other more important programs get none; and 13 vulnerable House
Republicans go wee, wee all the way home with their pork.
Mr. Speaker, if this is a revolution, if this is the most important
thing that we can be doing in this country for the next generation, it
would be like fighting the French Revolution and not attacking the
Bastille for the Republicans to have all this pork in this safe
drinking water bill, and for all of them to unanimously be saying vote
for it.
What a transformation for the freshman class, so proud that they are
now able to stick port in for their own district while knowing that it
violates the instructions of this very House, of the recession of the
Senate to our position that there should be no pork, and at the same
time delaying so long in figuring out how to put in the pork that an
extra $725 million are lost across this country for safe drinking water
projects in every State in the Union.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Barcia].
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, This bill will enhance the tools that our
Government has to assure a safe drinking water supply. The bill will
also protect the taxpayer, providing more flexibility to local
officials by maintaining standards, but easing excessive requirements.
The public has a right to clean water and has a right to know when, and
by what, their water supply is at risk. For that reason, the agreement
also makes the public right to know part of the law of the land.
With flexibility and protection, we still have billions of dollars in
unmet water infrastructure needs. This legislation incorporates
provisions of the Water Supply Infrastructure Assistance Act of 1995,
which provide for a new State revolving loan fund, which will provide
loans and technical assistance to communities with drinking water
quality problems.
In discussing this historic compromise, I feel compelled by
misleading comments made by a few of our colleagues to discuss a
provision in the bill which provides specific assistance for several
communities in our Nation. One of those communities is Bad Axe in my
Fifth District of Michigan. I have been working with officials in that
town for years to find a solution to their problems with arsenic,
barium, and visible iron. No resources have been available to address
their lack of resources. Their efforts to fix the existing system have
cost money, raising citizens' monthly bills. To complicate matters, the
water has so much foreign matter that it necessitates the early
replacement of pipes, water heaters and other home and municipal water
equipment, placing another financial burden on the town and its
citizens.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, the solution lies just 17 miles away in three
different directions. But, because Federal and State resources are not
available, and taxpayers already bear too large a tax burden for a
rural farm economy to support, the attempt to connect to one of three
plants in adjacent towns has not been possible. Instead, good money is
thrown after bad, wasted on stop gap measures to provide enough water
which may be appropriate for nondrinking uses like washing clothes.
These few dollars are the only way for Bad Axe to solve its drinking
water crisis. So, Mr. Speaker, when someone tells the people of Bad Axe
that they are the recipients of pork, Federal Government largess, let
us remember that we are talking about citizens in need; citizens in a
small town which is overextended which lies in a State which receives
one of the lowest national returns on its Federal tax dollar. If this
is pork, Mr. Speaker, pass the platter.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, in June we had a very good bipartisan bill
passed out of the Committee on Commerce, but unfortunately the
Republican leadership could not leave well enough alone. They had to
take it into their back rooms and load it up with political pork. This
is the same Republican leadership that claims to be for reform and for
cutting unnecessary spending.
The House passed the bill on June 25, yet once again the Republican
leadership still could not get it right. They delayed and they delayed.
It took an astounding 3 weeks for the leadership to appoint conferees.
Now, it is August 2 and we have lost $725 million in fiscal year 1996
funds. In my own State alone we have lost nearly $15.5 million in
grants funds. On top of that the Republican leadership has earmarked
for their vulnerable Members on a political basis $175 million of what
is left.
Mr. Speaker, this is simply an outrage. They have taken legislation
that was supported by the industry and environmentalists, by Democrats
and Republicans, by the right and the left, and they have basically
made it almost unsupportable at this point. It is a real shame. It is a
tragedy. This could have been a bill that everyone would have supported
and that we could have used as an example of good legislation that this
House could pass this session, and instead we have this bill, loaded up
with pork that is practically unsupportable at this time.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to set the record straight about the
delay on this conference report. The deadline for approving the fund
was July 31. We did not get the conference report papers until August
1. The gentleman from New York indicated that the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and I might have been responsible for that. It
was the mangers of this legislation.
The last point I want to make is the House voted unanimously for one
position. That was to keep these pork projects out of that revolving
fund and let them stand in line later if they can claim on the merits
that they should be funded, and that position was rejected.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I would begin by expressing great respect and affection
for my dear friend from Virginia. He worked well with me in the
consideration of this legislation. He is a fine and valued Member of
this Congress.
I also want to express great respect and affection for the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster]. That may come
as a surprise to the gentleman, but I do feel that way.
I want to talk a little bit about what has happened here and why we
are in this mess.
The leadership, the Speaker, took about 3 weeks in which to appoint
the conferees. The deadline for money being available under the
appropriations law was the last day of July. That deadline passed. It
passed in good part because the Public Works Committee and my good
friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, did not accept the concession of
the Senate in which the Senate agreed they would recede and concur with
regard to the handling of the moneys within the bill.
One of the important things to note is that what is at issue here is
not just
[[Page H9873]]
pork. I have always voted, almost without exception, with the Public
Works Committee and at one time I was a member of that committee and I
understand the art of pork and the art of taking care of Members of
this Congress. But the point that needs to be made is that we have here
a fund which is too small. It is about $725 million. That is all that
is available to address the problems of clean water in all the
districts in this country. The Committee on Public Works has short-
stopped half of that money, $350 million worth of it. That means that
they will allocate--not on the basis of merit but on the basis of pure,
raw, unadulterated politics--money which should be allocated on the
basis of real need. There is not enough money. Need should be the basis
on which the money is going to be allocated, but that mechanism will
not be used. Rather, this money will be short-stopped.
The consequence of this is that in district after district, all
around the country, in every State in the union, major projects which
need to be addressed on the basis of safety and the public health will
not be addressed because money has been allocated on a political basis,
not on the basis of need and not on the basis of public health. That is
why this is a bad action, and it should be clear in the record as we go
forward in our business.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This has been an interesting debate. I would like first to clear up
what I consider to be a few inaccuracies. First, this bill is $7.6
billion in total. All of this fuss is over $25 million.
I would also like to point out in this, for all of the Members, those
present and those who may be watching, this is very, very important.
This motion to recommit that will be offered, I understand, if it is
offered, is not debatable.
What it means is that the bill would then go back to conference. It
is not something that would come back immediately to the floor, which
means you would go home and you would not have passed this vital piece
of legislation and we would lose additional millions of dollars of
money for these vitally needed projects. That is absolutely important.
Mr. Speaker, we need to pass this bill, this conference report, send
it over to the other body, and have them pass it, so that we can ensure
the quality of the drinking water of the communities and the citizens
of this Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the conference report.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to praise the work of the
staff: My chief of staff, J.E. Derderian; Bob Meyers; Nandan
Kenkeremath; Chris Wolf; and our general counsel, Charles Ingebretson.
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 3592, the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. I commend
Chairman Bud Shuster and Chairman Sherwood Boehlert for their diligent
work in drafting this important legislation.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 contains several
provisions drawn from legislation that I introduced earlier this year
to help our Nation's ports. For centuries, our ports have been the
arteries that have kept our economy thriving. More than 95 percent of
our Nation's commerce relies on our ports to send or receive goods and
raw materials. Our ports not only provide an economical and energy-
efficient means of transportation for thousands of businesses, they are
also a major source of jobs. Some 15 million people work in port-
related jobs across the country. In my region alone, the Port of New
York and New Jersey provides jobs for 180,000 workers.
But today, the economic viability of our ports is being threatened by
Government regulations that have severely curtailed the centuries-old
practice of dredging berths and channels. Ports throughout the Nation,
from Oakland to Duluth, Houston to Newark, are facing serious economic
consequences because of their inability to dredge.
For decades, the Army Corps of Engineers and private contractors have
dredged our Nation's channels and disposed of most of the dredge
sediments in the ocean. But as stringent new procedures have been put
in place to prohibit the dumping of contaminated materials in the
ocean, an increasing amount of dredged material is no longer eligible
for ocean disposal. This has led to a national debate over how to
safely and economically dispose of the mud. In my State, the Port of
New York and New Jersey is already losing business because of the
inability to dispose of contaminated sediment.
The lack of dredging is having consequences that reach far beyond the
loading and offloading of container ships. Everyone who lives or works
in my State benefits from the port. For consumers, it means lower
prices for the products they buy. For businesses, the port provides a
convenient and inexpensive way to send or receive final products or raw
materials. And for workers, the port is a source of thousands of jobs
both at the port and at the thousands of businesses that rely on the
port itself to transport their goods.
In 1994 alone, 409,000 automobiles passed through our port. In all,
some 4,000 ships arrive at the Port of New York and New Jersey every
year.
Until recently, 95 percent of the dredged sediment in the Port of New
York and New Jersey passed ocean dumping standards. But now, with
better testing criteria in place, nearly two-thirds of the sediment
lying at the bottom of the Port of New York and New Jersey is so
contaminated that under regulations promulgated by the Environmental
Protection Agency, it is considered category III and cannot be disposed
of in the ocean. With no other viable dredging disposal option yet in
place, dredging in the port has literally ground to a halt.
For several years, I have been working with the Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey and the two States to help find workable solutions
for this dredging crisis. This past March I introduced H.R. 3170, the
Port Revitalization Act of 1996. Since then, this legislation has drawn
the support of Republicans and Democrats from both New York and New
Jersey, businesses, labor groups, and the environmental community.
H.R. 3170 addresses the root cause of the problem now facing the Port
of New York and New Jersey and others in the United States, which is to
develop a safe and economical means of disposing of contaminated
dredged materials. The Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee
held hearings on this legislation and the issue of dredging, and much
of my bill is incorporated as part of H.R. 3592.
Specifically, my legislation authorized the construction of a long-
term confined disposal facility for dredged sediments from the Port of
New York and New Jersey. Such a facility could meet the port's dredging
disposal needs well into the next century. Like the successful disposal
facilities in Baltimore and Norfolk, a contained facility will provide
an environmentally safe way of disposing of dredged materials that are
unfit for ocean disposal.
There are a variety of types of confined disposal facilities that
could be constructed under this bill, including containment islands,
subaqueous pits, near-shore facilities, or upland disposal. Moving
forward with a long-term disposal facility for the port is essential to
assure the shipping community that this port won't be reliving this
dredging nightmare every 2 or 3 years. We simply must develop a long-
term facility if we are to keep the current shipping business at the
port.
This section of the bill complemented New Jersey State legislation
that would dedicate substantial State funds to begin dredging and the
construction of short- and long-term confined disposal facilities. In
fact, this November New Jerseyans will vote on a $300 million bond
issue to help with the dredging of our harbor. Together, the Federal
Government and the States of New Jersey and New York can provide a
permanent and long-term disposal solution to preserve the vitality of
this port.
Next, H.R. 3170 opens up the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to allow
this fund to help finance the construction of a long-term disposal
facility and the search for a short-term, interim solution to our
region's crisis. This fund, which is supported by a tax on shippers,
established in 1986 to make sure channels are dredged regularly so they
are safe and navigable. But under current law, the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund cannot be used to help pay for the construction of new
disposal facilities.
At a time when ports across the country cannot be dredged because
there is no safe place to dispose of the dredged materials, it makes no
sense to keep such tight restrictions on the use of this fund. The
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund has a huge $600 million surplus, a
surplus which is expected to grow by $100 million annually. My bill
makes this trust fund a significant new funding source for a variety of
containment facilities and disposal options being considered for our
port.
Another provision of the bill would enable the Federal Government,
through the Army Corps of Engineers, to assume 65 percent of the cost
of building new confined disposal facilities for dredged sediments,
regardless of
[[Page H9874]]
where they are located. Under current law, the Federal Government is
authorized to pay out of general revenue for 65 percent of the cost for
only ocean disposal of dredged sediment. The Port of New York and New
Jersey, and many others, can no longer rely exclusively on ocean
disposal for dredged sediment, and need to find upland or other
confined facilities to deposit contaminated mud. Through this
provision, my bill ensures that the Federal Government remains a major
financing partner in the construction of modern dredged disposal
facilities.
Finally, H.R. 3170 reauthorizes the decontamination technology pilot
study now underway by the Environmental Protection Agency and raises
its authorization level to $10 million annually. Congress must continue
to invest in dredged sediment decontamination technology to make the
dredged material environmentally safe and eligible for either
beneficial upland use or ocean disposal.
I am pleased that each of these provisions in H.R. 3170 is included
in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. Mr. Speaker, each of
these provisions will make a significant impact on the status of
dredging projects in the ports of the United States.
In addition to these provisions, there are two additional
authorizations in this legislation which directly affect the Port of
New York and New Jersey.
First, H.R. 3592 provides additional funding for the deepening of the
Kill Van Kull shipping channel to 45 feet. The Kill Van Kull is a
channel in the Port of New York and New Jersey with a current
maintained depth of 35 feet. Having the channels deepened to 45 feet
will enable the largest oceangoing vessels to reach the berths of the
port without fear of scraping bottom.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 authorized this deepening
project at the level of $325 million. However, after the completion of
the first phase of this deepening project down to 40 feet, this
authorization level had been exceeded and the dredging was put on hold.
H.R. 3592 raises the authorization for this deepening project to $750
million, allowing the Army Corps to continue with the second phase of
the deepening project down to 45 feet.
Second, this legislation increases the authorization for a similar
deepening project in the Arthur Kill, a channel between Staten Island,
NY, and New Jersey. The new authorization level is $82 million, which
will cover the increased costs of deepening this section of channel.
Both of these projects will provide invaluable assurance to the
shipping companies that depend on the depth of the channels to safely
bring their goods to port.
In closing, let me once again thank the chairman of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the chairman of the
Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee for their work in drafting
this bipartisan, noncontroversial legislation. I urge my colleagues to
join me is supporting this bill.
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to comment on
the Water Resources Development Act [WRDA]. This is an important,
bipartisan piece of legislation that will provide the country with the
resources to meet many pending infrastructure needs. I am particularly
concerned with flood-control provisions in this legislation. As we
continue to see on a daily basis, investing in sufficient flood-control
measures protects our families and property from the devastation in
floods. I am concerned that the cost-share formula for these projects
is becoming prohibitive for our rural communities. This bill calls for
a future formula of 65 percent Federal, 35 percent local, and this will
have a significant impact on smaller localities, where this help is
needed most.
We must continue to be farsighted in our approach to these problems,
including cost share, and I would like to thank the chairman of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Shuster, and the
ranking minority member, Mr. Oberstar, as well as the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Mr. Boehlert, and the
ranking minority member, Mr. Borski, for their leadership in this
regard. The committee staffs worked tirelessly in the spirit of
cooperation while crafting this measure, and that attitude has clearly
followed this legislation to the floor, as we are considering it as a
suspension bill. I hope the rest of the legislative process in regard
to WRDA moves this swiftly.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, as a cochair of the Congressional Porkbusters
Coalition and a Member interested in improving the integrity of
Congress, I am strongly opposed to the method by which earmarked water
projects were included in the Safe Drinking Water Act. Most, if not
all, of these projects circumvented established congressional
procedures and were inserted into the bill by the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. Congressional districts benefiting
because a Representative holds a position of influence on a committee
or has made a special arrangements with a member of the committee is
simply wrong.
The American people are fed up with the backroom dealing and horse
trading that has characterized congressional politics to this day. The
time has come to bring fairness and objectivity to the authorization
and appropriation processes. If a Member of Congress believes that a
project should be funded in their district, then let us hold open,
public hearings on that project. We can hear about the merits of the
project and why American taxpayers should shell out their hard-earned
dollars to pay for it. Let us apply objective criteria to the numerous
projects that seek funding in order to create a prioritized list. We
then can match our priorities against our limited Federal resources and
make fair, impartial decisions as to which projects should be funded.
Mr. Speaker, I share your concern for eliminating the deficit and
balancing the budget. To do both, many difficult decisions must be
made. One of the easiest decisions, however, should be to eliminate
earmarked projects that have not passed the scrutiny of established
Congressional procedures and competitive selection processes. Let us
begin by opposing these earmarked water projects in the Safe Drinking
Water Act.
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my
support for the conference report to S. 1316 the Safe Drinking Water
Act Amendments. The Safe Drinking Water Act was first passed in 1974 to
protect drinking water supplied by public water systems from harmful
contaminants. The conference report before us today is commonsense
legislation that will continue to assure the safety of our drinking
water.
Under this conference report State and local authorities can enhance
the purity of drinking water, and focus resources on those contaminants
that pose the greatest risk to human health. Local water systems will
no longer have to test for contaminants that have never been detected
in their water supply.
Also, under this legislation, consumers will be given more
information about their drinking water than ever before. Under
provisions in the conference report, water systems will be required to
mail an annual report to every consumer concerning the levels of
regulated contaminants.
This conference report also authorizes $80 million for new studies.
These studies will examine the health effects of such substances as
arsenic and sulfate.
Finally, this conference report will provide State and local water
authorities with the resources they will need to get the job done. H.R.
3604 creates a $7.6 billion State revolving fund. This fund will
provide direct grants and loans for compliance activities, enhancement
of water system capacities, operator training, and development of
solutions to source water pollution.
Mr. Speaker, the public deserves to feel confident that the water
they drink is safe. The conference report to S. 1316 accomplishes this.
It is commonsense legislation that improves the current drinking water
standards, while at the same time lowering costs to water authorities.
I would encourage my colleagues to support passage of the conference
report so that we may enact meaningful reform of our safe drinking
water laws. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference
report on S. 1316, the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments. The Science
Committee was given conferees on the drinking water research provision
in the House and Senate bills. I would like to thank the Science
Committee conferees, Congressman Rohrabacher, and Congressman Roemer,
for their help and support during conference.
The bill as agreed to in conference includes numerous important
research provisions. The bill authorizes $26.6 million for safe
drinking water research each year for fiscal year 1997 through fiscal
year 2003. This authorization is intended to enable the Environmental
Protection Agency's [EPA] Office of Research and Development [ORD] to
continue its Drinking Water Research Program.
The conference report further authorizes an additional $10 million a
year from the new drinking water State revolving loan fund [SRLF] for
health effects research on contaminants in drinking water such as
cryptosporidium, disinfection byproducts, and for the implementation of
a plan for research on subpopulations at greater risk. This $10 million
is new money derived from the SRLF and should boost ORD's ability to
conduct priority research on drinking water contaminants.
The conference report also includes $2.5 million per year for fiscal
year 1997 through fiscal year 2000 for research on arsenic. Finally,
the report contains $12.5 million a year for 7 years to develop a
research plan and conduct research on harmful substances in drinking
water.
Along with these important research authorizations, the conference
report includes an important new research review requirement which
should help ensure that the drinking water research conducted by EPA is
of the
[[Page H9875]]
highest quality. Section 202, Scientific Research Review, requires the
Administrator of EPA to develop a strategic plan for drinking water
research. It also requires the Administrator to review all drinking
water research conducted by the Agency to ensure it is not duplicative
and of the highest quality. This provision is similar to the research
review requirement passed by the House earlier this year as part of
H.R. 3322, the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1996.
Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report accompanying S. 1316,
and I encourage my colleagues to vote for its passage.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
bipartisan and bicameral agreement to modify and strengthen the Safe
Drinking Water Act. I applaud the conferees for working together on
such a short timeframe and delivering a good compromise bill.
Getting a final agreement on this issue has taken nearly 3 years. I
remember working with my colleagues last Congress on issues that
continued to be the sticking points again this Congress. I'm so
relieved that we have reached consensus on these major issues of
contention.
My main interest throughout this debate has been to create a more
flexible regulatory approach that protects our Nation's drinking water
without wasting valuable financial and human resources. I come from an
extremely rural area where most people obtain their drinking water from
private wells or small water systems. Most of these small water systems
operate on a tight budget with only one employee operating the system.
If these small systems are forced to monitor for contaminants that do
not exist in their watershed or are compelled to comply with other
regulations primarily aimed at protecting drinking water from large
systems, they must divert valuable dollars that could be better used in
addressing problems unique to the specific system. This bill recognizes
that small systems are inherently different from larger systems and
often have different needs in maintaining compliance with the drinking
water standards.
In particular, S. 1316 relieves onerous and excessive monitoring
requirements, establishes the development of small system technologies,
provides money for the rural water technical assistance and circuit
rider program, creates a State revolving fund to provide needed capital
to upgrade and build systems and realigns standard setting criteria to
take into consideration sound science and cost/benefit analysis.
However, this bill does not only ease burdensome Federal requirements,
but it also requires the implementation of new obligations. For
example, S. 1316 mandates the establishment of State capacity
development and State operator certification programs. While these
programs will ensure that our water systems are well operated and in
compliance with the act, it does compel States and systems to go that
extra mile in evaluating the health of their drinking water.
S. 1316 is widely supported--from the environmentalists to the
Governors--and I want to urge my colleagues to support this commonsense
bill.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Speaker, all of us want to make sure that the food we
eat and the water we drink is clean and safe. That's why I am proud to
support a safe drinking water bill that will help make sure we are
doing the best job possible to keep our drinking water supplies clean.
Today, as we vote on the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996, we are
showing the American people all the good that can result when Congress
works together to get something done.
But this bill is about more than just getting something done. Rather,
it is a perfect example of how updating our environmental laws and
reducing regulatory hurdles can result in better environmental
protection. I believe this bill represents what this Congress is all
about--making Government work better by giving local governments more
flexibility to make their own decisions.
I truly believe that given the opportunity, local governments, not
Federal bureaucrats, are better able to determine the needs and
priorities of their own communities. The SDWA gives States more
flexibility and does away with the one-size-fits-all approach that is
prohibiting some local governments from using new technologies to
manage their water supplies.
A perfect example of why we need greater flexibility can be found in
the Puget Sound region--which includes a large part of my district.
Most of my constituents get their water supply from the Cedar River
Watershed which is run and protected by the city of Seattle. As debate
over the SDWA began, I sought input from the city of Seattle and others
to determine how we could develop a bill that will result in stronger
protection and more flexibility.
The bill we will pass accomplishes both those goals.
Under the current SDWA, which was originally signed into law in 1974
by President Ford, the city of Seattle, and many other larger
metropolitan cities, do not have the flexibility to determine what type
of water treatment system to use. Seattle is currently required to use
the filtration method, even after finding that ozonation can provide a
greater degree of protection at a lower cost.
Under this bill, the city of Seattle and many other cities would be
able to use alternative treatments to filtration--providing that the
alternative is better able to protect the safety of our public water
supply and that it receives approval by the Environmental Protection
Agency.
The city believes that the ozonation method better meets its water
quality objectives. The ozonation treatment is more effective in
neutralizing the pathogens especially cryptosporidium and giardia which
are commonly found in surface water supplies. For Seattle, the
filtration technology would inactivate 99.9 percent of cryptosporidium,
but ozonation could be effectively designed to inactive up to 99.999
percent, providing a higher level of public health protection. In
addition, it is considerably less expensive than filtration and is
believed to be the next up and coming technology for ensuring safe and
clean drinking water.
In addition to giving local governments more flexibility, this bill
will also accomplish some very important goals: First, focusing on the
most serious risks to human health, second, requiring that an annual
water quality report be sent to consumers, and third, speeding up the
public notification process for violations.
Before closing today, I would like to thank Chairman Bliley, Chairman
Bilirakas, Mr. Dingell, and Mr. Waxman for all their work to put
together a bipartisan bill that will go a long way in protecting the
water we all drink.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
progressive and bipartisan bill, which will have an enormously
beneficial effect on the health and environment of the American people.
As a conferee on this landmark legislation, I can tell you that this
conference report on the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA] marks a major
shift away from the regulatory status quo of placing undue value and
emphasis on the regulation itself, toward what the practical effect of
the regulation actually is on the public health and our natural
resources. This is as it should be.
It is this kind of outcome-driven and science-based environmental
policy setting that I have been proud to be a part of in this Congress.
This is the kind of process in which I was used to operating during my
time in local government, and the results of this cooperative and
effective policy making which we see here today will allow us to better
serve the public health needs of the American people.
It has been a privilege for me to have been able to play a close role
in strengthening and improving such an important statute as the SDWA.
These amendments will provide for sensible and much-needed reforms in
how the SDWA is implemented.
H.R. 3604 will help to refocus EPA's priorities and resources toward
those contaminants which present the greatest and most immediate threat
to public health, provide EPA and local water authorities with greater
flexibility in implementing the improved SDWA law, and place new
emphasis on ensuring that public water systems have the necessary
technical, managerial, and financial resources available to comply with
the SDWA.
Mr. Speaker, this also marks a significant achievement in our ability
to recognize and address flaws or gaps in our existing environmental or
public health strategies. Laws such as the SDWA were clearly well-meant
at the time of their inception in this case, the 1972-era SDWA has not
been reauthorized since 1986.
However, the passage of time invariably exposes weaknesses or
shortcomings in the strongest of our statutes, and we need to recognize
and respond to this. In the past, it has often been easier to confront
problems by simply blaming a law, instead of working together to
determine whether the law in question is being properly implemented, or
whether it is still effective in serving its intended purpose. These
laws need to be as dynamic and flexible as the rapidly changing
environments we intend for them to protect, and the people who live in
them.
This means that occasionally such laws must be reexamined and
renewed, in order to ensure that their original goals are still being
achieved.
I have always believed that we ought not to cling to the conventional
wisdom that our public health and environmental laws are set in stone,
and incapable of being improved with the application of new knowledge.
In order to maintain their effectiveness, we have the responsibility to
see to it that when modern science and technology can be applied to
improve these laws, we take the appropriate action to do so.
Many of our crown jewel environmental laws were written over 20 years
ago, and it is incumbent upon us to make these needed improvements when
necessary. With this comprehensive reauthorization, this Congress
accomplishes a challenging but long-
[[Page H9876]]
unachievable task on behalf of all of our constituents nationwide. I
want to commend my Chairmen, Mr. Biley and Mr. Bilirakis, and my other
colleagues who worked hard together, in a bipartisan manner, to help
make this happen.
In addition to the sound science-based foundation of this bill, I am
particularly proud of section 305 of the bill, which addresses health
standards for bottled water. Section 305 is a refinement of legislation
(H.R. 2601) which I introduced earlier in this Congress. My language
will simply require that any EPA regulation which sets a maximum
containment level for tap water, and any FDA regulation setting a
standard of quality for bottled water for the same contaminant, take
effect at the same time. If the FDA does not promulgate a regulation
within a realistic time frame as established by section 305, the
regulation established by the EPA for that element in tap water will be
considered the applicable regulation for the same element in bottled
water. This will provide consumers with the health assurances that the
water they can purchase off the shelf meets at least the same standards
as their tap water. I have a letter from the International Bottled
Water Association which elaborates on the benefits of this provision,
which I would like entered in the record.
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to conclude with an observation. In my hometown
of San Diego, my family and my constituents are very fortunate to
already enjoy an extremely high standard of quality in our drinking
water; in fact a recent study by a national environmental group found
that water systems in the San Diego region reported zero health
advisories over the last 3 years.
By comparison, the same study found that an alarmingly high
percentage of water systems in some regions of the country, including
Washington DC had reported health advisories or compliance failures
during the same time period. The Safe Drinking Water Act amendments we
will pass today, and which will soon be signed into law, will
strengthen and improve the weak links in the existing statute, and in
so doing will help bring these high levels of health and environmental
quality which we appreciate in San Diego to other communities
nationwide.
Again, and I can't emphasize it enough, this is a progressive step
forward, away from a 1970's-era process which places higher value on
process and regulation itself, towards a more responsible and outcome-
based approach which focuses on the product that is generated.
This will help us reinforce our common goals of better serving the
public health needs of the American people, and providing us with a
cleaner and safer overall environment, which is something we ought to
be ever mindful of, and never not take for granted.
International Bottled
Water Association,
Alexandria, VA, June 25, 1996.
Hon. Brian Bilbray,
Longworth House Office Building, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Rep. Bilbray: The International Bottled Water
Association, which represents over 85 percent of all bottled
water sold in the United States, would like to thank you for
your help in drafting the bottled water provision of the Safe
Drinking Water Act legislation. We are also grateful to the
committee staff who developed this improved version of the
Senate bottled water provision in cooperation with your
legislative director, Dave Schroeder.
Our industry strongly supports the principal objective of
this provision, i.e., to require that any EPA regulation
setting a maximum contaminant level for tap water and any FDA
regulation setting a standard of quality for bottled water
for the same contaminant take effect at the same time.
One in six households relies on bottled water as their
source of drinking water. There are 430 companies producing
bottled water in the United States with annual sales
estimated at $3.4 billion, making bottled water one of the
fastest growing segments of the beverage industry.
Bottled water is regulated by the FDA, the states and
through IBWA's own model code. The bottled water provision
will ensure that a FDA standard for a contaminant in bottled
water is set in a timely manner and is no less protective of
the public health than the EPA regulation for the same
contaminant in tap water.
We look forward to seeing the Safe Drinking Water Act
legislation signed into law this year. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sylvia E. Swanson,
Executive Vice President.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of North Carolina). The question
is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DINGELL. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 392,
nays 30, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 399]
YEAS--392
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
[[Page H9877]]
Wolf
Woolsey
Yates
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--30
Abercrombie
Beilenson
Berman
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Eshoo
Evans
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Klink
Lewis (GA)
Markey
McDermott
McKinney
Meek
Miller (CA)
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Stupak
Velazquez
Waters
Waxman
Wynn
NOT VOTING--11
Bishop
Brownback
Chenoweth
Conyers
Dickey
Ford
Kaptur
Lincoln
McDade
Schumer
Young (FL)
{time} 1332
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia and Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. FATTAH, MEEHAN, BECERRA, SANFORD, LUTHER, Ms. RIVERS, Mrs.
MINK of Hawaii, and Mrs. MALONEY changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________