New York City Watershed Protection Program Reauthorization

Floor Speech

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.

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.

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.

Source