We urge you to oppose suspending the rules for the Safe Drinking Water Act legislation on Tuesday's House calendar if that bill contains, as we fear it may, $375 million in pork projects largely unrelated to the Safe Drinking Water Act.

On June 11, 1996, the Commerce Committee passed on a 42-0 vote comprehensive reform of the Safe Drinking Water Act. This measure includes an annual authorization for a billion dollar drinking water revolving loan fund to assist States in complying with existing and new safe drinking water standards. The vote in the Commerce Committee followed several months of painstaking, bi-partisan negotiations that culminated in a compromise endorsed by the Administration, the Drinking Water Reform Coalition, and environmental groups. If this were the bill the House were considering on suspension, we would be fully supportive of it. And because a similar measure passed the Senate last year, all signs would point to a quick conference and to a bill that could and and would be signed by the President.

Despite the bipartisan and open process that governed consideration of this bill in Committee, it is now clear that fundamental decisions are being made on the substance of the legislation behind closed doors. Some Republicans have apparently determined that passing a balanced, well-crafted environmental bill is not enough. They seem to want this measure to be an opportunity for Republicans to show that they can bring home the bacon. So the bill that is set for a vote today may include $375 million in "grants" sought by Chairman Shuster and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that are not necessary to the bill and that are not supported by the Administration. The $375 million is earmarked for 14 specific projects, few of which would qualify as priorities under the "needs analysis" required under the bill, and many of which are not even related to safe drinking water. Not surprising, the overwhelming number of the projects benefit Republican districts. The need involved is not public health, but political health.

While we continue to support the bill that passed the Commerce Committee, we cannot accept the grafting of this unneeded grant program onto the bill. This is bad policy, bad process and bad politics. Unless and until this unjustified giveaway is removed from the bill, we will not support taking the measure up under suspension of the rules. At a minimum, the bill should go to the Rules Committee so that the full House can vote on an amendment to strike this earmarked money from the bill.

If you are not one of the lucky 14 who get a project, we urge you to join us in voting against suspending the rules for H.R. 3604.

Sincerely,

John D. Dingell, Ranking Member
Committee on Commerce

Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Health and the Environment

Back to the Public Record Home Page