[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 61 (Wednesday, May 5, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H2600-H2605]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION

  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2771) to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to reauthorize 
the New York City Watershed Protection Program.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2771

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM.

       Section 1443(d)(4) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300j-2(d)(4)) is amended by striking ``1997 through 
     2003'' and inserting ``2003 through 2010''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor).


                             General Leave

  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and insert extraneous material on this legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to recognize my subcommittee vice chairman, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Fossella), for the fine work that he has done on this 
bill.
  The New York Watershed Protection Program reauthorization is 
bipartisan legislation with 28 cosponsors, including both the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Towns) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) 
who are members of our full committee. In fact, the bill has 19 
Democrats as cosponsors and 12 Republicans. This bill is a perfect 
example of fair-minded people from all parts of the political spectrum 
coming together to support legislation that is good for the 
environment.
  The New York City Watershed covers an area of over 1,900 square miles 
in the Catskill Mountains and the Hudson River Valley. The watershed is 
divided into two reservoir systems, the Catskill/Delaware watershed and 
the Croton watershed. Together, the two reservoir systems deliver 
approximately 1.4 billion gallons of water every day to nearly 9 
million people in the New York City area.
  In December 1993, EPA concluded that New York City was able to avoid 
filtration of its drinking water and assigned New York over 150 
conditions relating to watershed protection, monitoring, and studies. 
Unfortunately, New York City met several key roadblocks to 
implementation of these requirements, including not being able to 
obtain a land acquisition permit or approval of revised watershed 
regulations from the State of New York.
  Congress addressed this problem in Section 128 of the Safe Drinking 
Water Act Amendments of 1996, when the New York City Watershed 
Protection Program was first enacted. The program authorized $15 
million per year for fiscal years 1997 to 2003 for EPA to provide 
matching grants to the State of New York for approved demonstration 
grants projects that were part of New York's watershed and source water 
protection program.
  In practice, this has been a successful program and has saved the 
economic vitality and the environmental quality of upstate New York 
communities in the watershed region, while also saving American 
taxpayers billions of dollars that would otherwise be necessary to 
build water filtration systems. Witnesses at our subcommittee hearing 
on this bill all spoke highly of this program, and they need to see it 
fully extended.
  Of note, EPA Administrator Leavitt has also testified that one way to 
reduce the financial needs of drinking

[[Page H2601]]

water delivery systems is to encourage more conservation efforts, and I 
believe programs like the New York City watershed are good examples of 
public and private partnerships paying environmental and economic 
dividends.
  The House faces a simple question: should we as Congress provide 
legal authority for the Federal Government to assist this watershed? I 
believe we should. It is a simple bill that extends the authorization 
of the New York City Watershed until 2010. Let us take a step toward 
bipartisan protection of the environment and New York's source water in 
particular. I urge Members to vote favorably on H.R. 2771.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are considering H.R. 2771, a bill passed by the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce to reauthorize the New York City 
Watershed Protection Program for 7 years.

                              {time}  1700

  I am not opposed to demonstration projects for monitoring New York 
City watershed, but it seems odd that of the more than a dozen core 
provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act that expired in 2003, the 
House leadership has managed to find time for consideration of the 
management of one bill which singles out a small demonstration grant 
program that benefits only one State for a 7-year reauthorization.
  During the Committee on Energy and Commerce's consideration of this 
bill, Democratic members questioned the wisdom of reauthorizing a 
provision that President Bush did not include in his 2005 budget. Given 
that, the subcommittee of the Committee on Energy and Commerce with 
oversight over this legislation, requested that the Bush administration 
provide the committee with a witness who could explain the 
administration's position on the bill, and explain why the President 
chose not to request funding for the program. The administration did 
not provide the committee with such a witness or with the requested 
information.
  The ranking Democrat on the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), 
the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous 
Materials, sent a letter to Administrator Leavitt asking those 
questions and requesting that he provide an answer by last Friday, 
April 30, so the House Members could make an informed vote on the bill.
  Administrator Leavitt still has not responded to that request.
  Mr. Speaker, that letter is as follows:

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                   Washington, DC, April 12, 2004.
      Hon. Michael R. Leavitt,
      Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Pennsylvania 
         Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
        Dear Administrator Leavitt: The Subcommittee on 
     Environment and Hazardous Materials held a hearing and markup 
     on Friday, April 2, 2004, on H.R. 2771, a bill to reauthorize 
     financial assistance to the State of New York for 
     demonstration projects implemented as part of the New York 
     City Watershed Protection Program. The legislation would 
     reauthorize Section 1443(d) of the Safe Drinking Water Act to 
     extend the annual authorization of $15,000,000 to the year 
     2010. None of the other thirteen provisions of the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act whose annual authorizations expired in 
     2003 would be extended or reauthorized.
        The Committee majority staff informed the minority staff 
     that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was unable to 
     provide a witness at the hearing to testify on the 
     President's budget requests for the New York Watershed 
     Program. The EPA witness from Region 2 who did appear at the 
     hearing was also unable to provide the Administration's 
     position on H.R. 2771.
        Therefore, I request a response to the following questions 
     not later than close of business on Friday, April 30, 2004:
        1. Does the Administration support H.R. 2771?
        2. Please explain why President Bush's budget for FY 2005 
     did not contain any requested funding to implement Section 
     1443(d), the New York Watershed Protection Program. In 
     addition, please explain why none of President Bush's 
     previous budgets for FY 2002, FY 2003, or FY 2004 contained 
     any funding requests to provide financial assistance to the 
     State of New York for the demonstration projects authorized 
     by Section 1443(d).
        3. Is it correct that the first financial assistance 
     provided by the EPA from appropriations earmarks to the State 
     of New York for the demonstration projects authorized by 
     Section 1443(d) was on or about September 30, 1997? Is it 
     also correct that the report from the Governor of New York on 
     the results of projects assisted as required by Section 
     1443(d)(2) was due to be submitted to the EPA Administrator 
     on or about September 30, 2002?
        Thank you for your cooperation with this matter. If you 
     have any questions regarding this request, please contact me 
     or have your staff contact Dick Frandsen, Senior Minority 
     Counsel, at 202-225-3641.
            Sincerely,
     John D. Dingell,
       Ranking Member.
     Hilda L. Solis,
       Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous 
     Materials.
  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, Democratic members expressed concern over 
the fact that H.R. 2771 seeks to reauthorize the program for an 
additional 6 years beyond the Senate companion to this bill.
  The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) offered an amendment to 
H.R. 2771 during the markup of the bill, a markup that would have 
reauthorized the bill for one additional year. This 1-year 
authorization would have ensured authorized funding of the New York 
City Watershed Project during the appropriations process.
  The amendment would have also allowed us to revisit the New York City 
Watershed Bill during a comprehensive review of the entire Safe 
Drinking Water Act next year.
  Every day we open the newspapers to read about the health concerns of 
families of Washington, D.C. and members in Washington, D.C. as they 
deal with excessive levels of lead in their drinking water.
  Each of us has heard from our local communities about the urgent need 
to upgrade our Nation's aging water infrastructure. There is an 
unquestionable need in all of our States for additional resources to 
ensure compliance with drinking water standards and make critical 
infrastructure improvements.
  Among the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act that have expired 
is the State Revolving Loan Fund, which funds critical water 
infrastructure and compliance needs throughout our country. President 
Bush's budget requested only $850 million for this critical program, 
$150 million less than the level authorized by the 1996 Safe Drinking 
Water Act amendments. If we authorized and fully funded that provision, 
each of our States would receive an additional 1 to $15 million.
  Local governments, States, drinking water suppliers and the EPA, all 
agree there is a tremendous resource gap which will continue to grow 
for drinking water infrastructure funding needed to protect the public 
health. This matter calls for corrective legislation. Of course, we 
support efforts to maintain the availability of safe drinking water in 
New York. But we should give all the expired provisions of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act the same attention we are giving H.R. 2771 so that 
families throughout the country can have access to safe drinking water.
  Mr. Speaker, we have the time here to name post offices and to 
commend athletic teams and organizations, and when we do get around to 
environmental concerns, we only take a teenie weenie bite at the apple. 
We should give the same amount of attention to the funding needs of all 
our environment programs. The President's FY 2005 budget cut $2.3 
billion in funding for programs that protect public health and the 
environment. The FY 2005 budget for the EPA is 7.2 percent below the FY 
2004 enacted level. Furthermore, the President does not reinstate the 
Superfund taxes in his FY 2005 budget, a move that would force 
taxpayers to foot the bill for hazardous cleanup and would deviate from 
the long-standing ``polluter pays'' principle of the Superfund.
  The President does include, however, expected revenues from opening 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, to oil and gas exploration 
despite strong opposition in Congress to this plan.
  We should also act to make sure people across the country have clean 
air to breathe. The Bush administration has severely loosened the 
requirements of

[[Page H2602]]

the Clean Air Act. This administration's new source review regulations 
allows plants to indefinitely continue to put large amounts of 
dangerous pollutants in the air. This administration has also proposed 
mercury regulations that would allow as much as 3 times more mercury to 
release from power plants than would be released under current law.
  We could spend our time passing legislation like the gentleman from 
California's (Mr. Waxman) Clean Smoke Stacks Act, H.R. 2042, to 
drastically curb emissions of sulpher dioxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon 
dioxide and mercury from power plants.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, a couple of quick points. The gentlewoman attacked this 
bill because Bush did not ask for funding for it. I would also point 
out that the Clinton administration did not ask for any funding for 
this bill either, but Congress has a responsibility which we exercised 
before when we originally authorized it and which we are doing it 
again.
  Regarding the comments about lead in the drinking water, the activity 
that is going on now is a GAO study that is ongoing at my request to 
look at that serious situation.
  I also want to respond to the comment the lady made about the money 
in the Safe Drinking Water Revolving Fund. I would point out to her 
that the Bush administration has asked for more money for that program 
than the Clinton administration did.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Fossella), the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and 
Hazardous Materials.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing H.R. 
2771 to the floor. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) for 
passing this bill to ensure the continued protection of our Nation's 
largest and most pure source of drinking water.
  The overwhelming bipartisan nature of this effort was seen at the 
subcommittee hearing when New York Members of Congress from both 
parties, representatives from upstate and New York City, as well as the 
State Department of Environmental Commissioner Crotty all testified in 
support of the bill. I would like to thank the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Towns) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) for their help 
in spearheading this effort through.
  The unanimous vote passing this bill out of the full committee is yet 
another testament to this bipartisan initiative and backed by every 
single member of the New York delegation. H.R. 2771 reauthorizes the 
New York City Watershed Protection Program, as I mentioned, made 
possible through the landmark New York City Watershed Agreement. The 
accord resulted from the efforts of Governor George Pataki and his 
vision to bring together environmental groups, New York City officials, 
upstate communities and the United States Department of Environmental 
Protection in 1997.
  It allowed for the continued and long-term protection of New York 
City's drinking water, while safeguarding the economic viability and 
environmental quality of Upstate communities in the watershed region. 
The agreement also saves, and this is important, State and Federal 
taxpayers $8 billion that would be necessary to build water filtration 
systems in its absence. With a relatively small amount of Federal 
funding, New York City and State have been able to implement an 
unprecedented water monitoring and surveillance program for the 1,900 
square miles of the region.
  This is the Nation's largest source of unfiltered drinking water, 
providing pristine water to 9 million residents in both New York City 
and its Upstate communities. Congress recognized the need to fund the 
New York City Watershed Protection Program in 1996 with the Safe 
Drinking Water Act amendments. Since then, the Watershed Agreement has 
made unprecedented advances towards enhancing water quality in both New 
York and the country.
  The $15 million in Federal funds authorized annually provides the 
seed money for groundbreaking programs and studies. These efforts are 
used as a nationwide model to improve drinking water for all Americans.
  Building on this small base of Federal funding, the City and State of 
New York have shown a strong commitment towards implementation of the 
Watershed Agreement. To date, both have spent $1.6 billion on watershed 
programs. Unfortunately, authorization of Federal funding of the 
agreement expired on September 30 of last year, leaving its future in 
jeopardy. H.R. 2771 solves this problem. By reauthorizing the program 
through 2010, enhancing the protection of New York City's water supply 
will continue, along with the development of watershed protection 
models benefiting, again, all Americans.
  Today, Congress will act to protect New York City's drinking water. 
Protect the watershed agreement's breakthrough innovations, protect 
Upstate farmers and communities and pass H.R. 2771.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Towns).
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 2771. This bill 
is very important to the people of New York. The entire New York 
delegation supports this bill.
  This legislation would reauthorize funding for the New York City 
Watershed Agreement, helping to ensure safe and healthy drawing for the 
residents of New York.
  New York City's vast water supply provides 1.4 billion gallons of 
high quality drinking water to more than 9 million New Yorkers every 
day. Nearly 90 percent of those consumers reside in New York City. To 
supply millions of people with safe, clean water takes an extensive 
water supply. In fact, the supply consists of 19 reservoirs in a 
watershed that spans almost 2,000 square miles. It covers 8 counties, 
60 towns, and 11 villages in the Catskill Mountain region and the 
Hudson River Valley.
  The effective protection of this essential national resource is an 
enormous challenge. Let me point out that environmental groups worked 
with New York City, State officials, Upstate communities, and the 
Federal Government to create the New York City Watershed Agreement. 
While this landmark agreement laid the groundwork for protecting the 
city's water supply, it could only work if an effective quality water 
monitoring program was implemented.
  So in 1996 Congress responded by authorizing annual funding for 7 
years. During this period, Congress has provided a total of $31 million 
to implement a comprehensive surveillance program, matched equally by 
grant recipients. Additionally, New York City and State have leveraged 
those Federal funds by investing $1.6 billion to protect the New York 
City drinking water supply. By reauthorizing Federal funding for the 
watershed agreement which expired last September, this bill would 
demonstrate the Federal Government's continued commitment and help 
maintain the safety of New York City's water supply.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by thanking the staff, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton); the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor), and 
of course the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky) for their hard work on this as well.
  Let me say that this is very important to New York City. And I know 
there has been some concern about the fact that other bills have not 
been moved or other areas have not included, but let me say that I 
think a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. And 
starting with New York, I think that is a good place to start. I cannot 
think of a better place to start than New York.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Kelly).
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this legislation. The 
enactment of H.R. 2771 has significant implications for my district, 
immediately north of New York City. This includes portions of 
Westchester, Rockland, Dutchess, Putnam and Orange Counties. Through 
all of these counties all of New York City's drinking water flows. The 
entire Croton system of reservoirs, the lower third of this system, is 
in my district.

[[Page H2603]]

  New York City's tap water has been called the champagne of drinking 
waters because of its exceptional purity. And it is because of the 
actions that take place in my district and other Upstate counties that 
this water is so pure.
  We are happy to partner with the city to protect its water supply in 
a way that helps preserve the pristine character of the Hudson River 
Valley. And the 1997 Watershed Agreement has been an essential tool for 
maintaining this partnership.
  Through assistance provided under the Watershed Agreement, 
communities in my district have been able to develop plans which help 
preserve their character and protect the water supply for New York 
City. Without the agreement and the critical assistance of the EPA, the 
balance we have struck would be undermined. And so the passage of this 
bill is vital to the continuing partnership in my district.
  The cost savings brought by this agreement needs to be considered as 
well. The cost of a plant to filter New York City's water supply system 
which would be necessary if this 1997 agreement falls apart, has been 
estimated at $8 billion. The Watershed Agreement is an area of common 
ground. We have worked hard to get this agreement going.
  I thank my colleagues for considering this legislation that will 
allow this mutually beneficial process to continue.

                              {time}  1715

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me on this bill.
  This bill, H.R. 2771, is a bill to reauthorize the New York City 
watershed protection program.
  We passed this bill out of the Subcommittee on Environment and 
Hazardous Materials last month. This legislation addresses a grant for 
one State, New York. It was the first markup the subcommittee took up 
in the entire 108th Congress.
  I do not mean to belittle the significance of this bill. I am pleased 
to help out my New York colleagues, but what about the consideration of 
the 13 other important provisions of the Safe Water Drinking Act whose 
authorizations have expired in 2003? The New York demonstration 
project's annual authorization of $15 million represents roughly 1 
percent of the over $1.2 billion in total authorizations the Safe 
Drinking Water Act provides.
  By giving priority to only one provision for special treatment, we 
are failing to address important core provisions of the act, such as 
the State revolving loan fund that helps all States and assures safe 
and healthy drinking water for all citizens. The revolving loan fund 
also expired in 2003 and is seriously short-changed in the 
administration's budget request at $850 million. That is $150 million 
less than the authorized level. This fund is critical in helping public 
water systems finance infrastructure projects needed to comply with the 
Federal drinking water regulations and to protect public health.
  The EPA itself says we need $102.3 billion in additional funding for 
water utilities just to maintain compliance with the Safe Drinking 
Water Act. That figure does not take into account the large and the 
huge costs of replacing critical water infrastructure.
  It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that public health issues are not a 
priority for the Republican House leadership.
  Far too many environmental and public health issues continue to be 
ignored. Let me name another issue that has continually been brushed 
aside.
  The importance of Canadian trash into Michigan and the interstate 
movement of trash in general to neighboring States, like Ohio and 
Pennsylvania, has been a problem for more than a decade. Although a 
hearing was held last July in the subcommittee, there has been no 
effort to pass out any of the three bills that have been introduced to 
address this issue by members of our committee of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce.
  One of those bills, of which I am a cosponsor, would direct the EPA 
to enforce an earlier agreement with Canada to stop the importation of 
municipal solid waste. I would be interested to know if the Republican 
leadership and the committee leadership are going to consider any of 
these bills this year.
  This is just one of a long list of important environmental issues 
that the majority has failed to address. Other issues include lead 
contamination in Washington, D.C.'s drinking water and the need for 
Federal drinking water standards for perchlorate to ensure that the 
Department of Defense cleans up widespread contamination at its 
facilities, like Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
  We should give the same amount of attention to the funding needs of 
all our environmental and public health programs. Instead, the 
President's budget cuts these programs by $2.3 billion, slashing EPA's 
budget by 7.2 percent below the fiscal year 2004 enacted level.
  Again, as the majority, the Republican leadership, here refuses to 
address these serious issues, it is America's environment and public 
health that are continually put at risk.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman for his comments. There are a couple of things 
I would like to point out.
  It is the Republicans on the Committee on Energy and Commerce that 
caused the broad investigation into lead in the drinking water. It was 
Republicans on the Committee on Energy and Commerce that asked GAO to 
look at the perchlorate problem in the water, and I would also point 
out that the Democrats on the committee were invited to participate in 
that request and just plain declined to do so.
  I would also point out that we have started looking at the problem of 
the actions of the Defense Department regarding environmental cleanups 
and that we have also held hearings on the matter of movement of trash 
both interstate and internationally, and that it was Republicans on the 
committee that developed and caused to be passed a leaking underground 
storage bill which is now incorporated in H.R. 6, which is the energy 
bill, which is still pending over in the Senate.
  It is the Republicans on the Committee on Energy and Commerce that 
have supported changes to the brownfield redevelopment program.
  So the thrust of the gentleman's statement that nothing is happening 
I would take some degree of exception to.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILLMOR. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the chairman, I 
agree we have had some hearings.
  The perchlorate that I mentioned at Camp Lejeune has been going on 
for 20 years. We have to get that resolved. We had testimony from Mr. 
Ensminger and others last week about his daughter who died of leukemia 
from the contaminant in the drinking water at Camp Lejeune, and no one 
has taken responsibility or accepted responsibility for doing anything 
about it.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Is the gentleman asking me a question or making a 
speech?
  Mr. STUPAK. The point I want to make, and see, with the trash issue, 
some 13 years we have had a number of hearings in committee. We had one 
last July, which I am thankful for.
  Mr. GILLMOR. If the gentleman is making a speech, he is doing it on 
my time.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, can we just report them out like we did this 
bill? This is the only bill we have reported out. Would my colleagues 
please report out the Canadian trash bills?
  Mr. GILLMOR. Reclaiming my time, we are taking a look at that, and as 
my colleague knows, we attempted to do that last year, and we had a 
problem that sometimes occurs around here called shortage of votes; but 
I am hopeful that we can have an interstate and international waste 
bill.
  The only way we are going to do it is if we have broad bipartisan 
support, which, as my colleague knows, he and I have both served on 
this committee a long time, is sometimes difficult to attain.
  Mr. STUPAK. We look forward to working with my colleague in a 
bipartisan manner to move those Canadian trash bills.
  Mr. GILLMOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H2604]]

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. watershed protection program is a 
very significant piece of environmental legislation. It is part of the 
Federal Clean Water Act, itself being one of the most significant 
pieces of environmental legislation ever addressed by this Congress. 
The issue here before us is the reauthorization of that New York City 
watershed protection program, and I urge the Members of this House to 
support that reauthorization.
  The Catskill Mountains provide the protection for the New York City 
water supply system. That protection is a natural system. The reservoir 
system itself is a natural system. It is gravity-fed. There are no 
pumps in it at any point along the way.
  The system itself is unfiltered, one of the few major water supply 
systems anywhere in the country that remains unfiltered. It is 
important that it remain so. It is important for some of the reasons 
that have been mentioned, costs certainly; $8 billion is an 
extraordinary amount of money. In addition to that, it would require 
another half a billion dollars a year just to operate the filtration 
system; but if the filtration system were to be built, that would 
undermine all of the protections that are inherent in this legislation 
that provide for natural, safe, pure protection of this water supply 
system.
  So I want to express my appreciation to everyone who has been 
involved with the creation of this bill and bringing it to the floor 
today and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) particularly and 
others on the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  I would also, along with my other colleagues, urge that the other 
portions of the Federal Clean Water Act be addressed as well and they 
be addressed expeditiously. The water supplies of this country are 
incredibly important to the health and safety of all Americans. We 
value our water supply system in New York. Other communities value 
theirs as well.
  I would urge that the remaining 13 provisions of the Federal Clean 
Water Act be addressed and be addressed as quickly as possible and be 
brought to the floor so we can deal with them in the proper fashion.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me, and I rise in strong support of this legislation.
  I am proud to serve on the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and when 
we marked up this bill last week, I was very happy to speak in favor of 
it.
  I represent a district covering Rockland, Westchester and Bronx 
counties, all of which are part of the 9 million people that this water 
is so important for.
  I am aware that many of my colleagues are unhappy that we are only 
reauthorizing a very small provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act. I 
agree with their unhappiness, and I hope that the committee and 
subcommittee and the full House can reauthorize the rest of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act; but I would say to my colleagues, please do not 
hold New York hostage.
  All 29 Members of the House representing New York, both Democrats and 
Republicans, strongly support this bill. I am certainly happy to take 
care of New York, but my State benefits from the State revolving loan 
fund as well. So I want to say that the safe drinking water programs 
are all important and should be reauthorized, and I hope they will be.
  This bill is very important to New York. Millions of people rely on 
drinking water from this watershed, and ensuring that they have safe 
and clean water is very important to me and my constituents. This is 
obviously not a perfect bill, but it is an important water quality 
monitoring program. It is a model program for the rest of the Nation, 
and I would hope this could be replicated with the rest of the Nation.
  So, again, I thank my colleagues for coming together. We want to have 
safe and clean drinking water in New York. When our Republican 
colleagues come to New York in August and September for the convention, 
we want their water to be pure, and I think Democrats and Republicans 
can all agree on that. So, again, I would urge my colleagues to support 
this legislation.

                              {time}  1730

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the gentleman on the issue of 
lead in the drinking water, in fact, it was the Committee on Government 
Reform that held hearings on this. Also, this legislation we were 
considering today was, in fact, the first markup of the 108th Congress 
in the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials.
  There are so many issues on the environmental agenda. Since we have 
so few opportunities to discuss those on the floor of the House since 
they are so rare to come before us, I wanted to just mention, bring to 
the attention of this body, that there is a very important third 
edition of the National Resource Defense Council book called 
``Rewriting the Rules: The Bush Administration's Assault on the 
Environment'' which documents more than 150 assaults on our 
environmental safeguards between January 2003 and March 2004.
  Among the most troubling Bush administration environmental actions 
include: In November 2003, the Bush administration proposed to legalize 
the release of inadequately treated sewage into waterways as long as it 
is diluted with treated sewage, a process the agency has 
euphemistically labeled ``blending.''
  In April 2003, in a sweeping legal settlement with then-Utah governor 
and current EPA administrator Mike Leavitt, the administration 
renounced the government's authority to conduct wilderness inventories 
on public lands or to protect more areas for their wilderness values. 
The sudden settlement involved no public comment or open deliberations, 
and threatens to open millions of acres of wilderness public lands to 
drilling, mining, road building and other development.
  The Bush administration has refused to regulate mercury through the 
same tough approach used for other hazardous air pollutants. The Clean 
Air Act requires the plants meet maximum achievable control technology 
standards for hazardous air pollutants. The Bush administration's 
proposal allows more mercury to be admitted, and gives industry decades 
longer to comply.
  Furthermore, in January 2004, it was revealed that at least a dozen 
paragraphs of the Bush administration's mercury proposal were lifted, 
sometimes verbatim, from memos sent by a law firm that represents the 
utility industry.
  Eric Schaeffer, the EPA's head of civil enforcement, handed in his 
resignation after President Bush announced the ``Clear Skies'' 
initiative. His letter of resignation said he was ``tired of fighting a 
White House that seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to 
enforce.''
  In February, 2004, 63 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates and 19 
recipients of the National Medal of Science, issued a statement 
accusing the Bush administration of ``deliberately and systematically'' 
distorting scientific fact and misleading the public in order to 
further its own partisan political objectives.
  In a damning report, the scientists detailed numerous examples of the 
administration's abuse of science, censoring government studies, 
gagging agency scientists, refusing to confer with or ignoring 
independent experts, appointing unqualified or industry-connected 
individuals to Federal advisory committees, disbanding those government 
panels offering unwanted information, and misinterpreting information 
to fit predetermined policy objectives.
  Having said all that, I would like to say that I think H.R. 2771, 
limited though it is, is an important step in providing clean, safe 
drinking water in New York City.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to follow up on a comment by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) who talked about the Republican 
convention being in New York this year, and that this would help us 
have good water while we are there. I want to assure the gentleman from 
New York and other New

[[Page H2605]]

Yorkers that I am looking forward to attending the Republican National 
Convention and sampling what the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) 
called the ``champagne of water'' while I am there.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support the extension of the 
New York City Watershed Protection Program, and I thank my colleague 
Vito Fossella for his leadership on this issue.
  Ensuring clean drinking water for our communities has always been a 
priority of mine. Providing a safe and health water supply is not just 
a public health issue, it is also a homeland security priority.
  I am pleased that the bill under consideration today will reauthorize 
the funding for the Watershed Protection Program through 2010. The 
program will provide $15 million per year to protect and enhance the 
quality of New York's water supply, and in the long run will save 
taxpayers the cost of an alternative water filtration system. This 
comprehensive initiative demonstrates our commitment to the ongoing 
preservation of New York's safe drinking water supply, and I am pleased 
to see communities, environmental groups and state officials join 
together in support of this cause.
  I am happy to support this legislation, which will benefit the health 
of New Yorkers and the quality of our environment for years to come.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2771.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________