THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display
The amendment that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LATOURETTE) and I are offering today is a simple one. It would provide funding for an authorized grant program that has the potential to benefit communities in every district across this country. These communities are currently struggling with the pervasive and devastating problem of sewer overflows from both combined and sanitary sewer systems. Sewer overflow control programs are often the largest public works projects that communities will face.
[Page: H4830] GPO's PDF
The amendment itself is a mere down payment on the funding that this body authorized in the Wet Weather Water Quality Act for fiscal year 2002, just last December. However, I am hopeful that in conference, more money will be found to fully fund the act at the level of $750 million or, alternatively, at least at the President's budget request of $450 million.
This amendment, which has bipartisan support, is about protecting the health of our citizens from untreated sewage, helping communities provide safe and clean drinking water to tens of millions of Americans, and protecting the environment. The families, residents and businesses who are subjected to sewer overflows nationwide deserve nothing less.
Fundamentally, this amendment is about our collective commitment to ensuring the availability of safe, clean, potable water to communities throughout the country.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all of the Members who share that commitment, like the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LATOURETTE), my colleague and good friend who has worked tirelessly on this issue. I appreciate his continued leadership. I would also like to especially thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. BOEHLERT) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. OBERSTAR) and all of the Members who have expressed support for fully funding the grant program. I also want to especially recognize and thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. WALSH), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. MOLLOHAN), the ranking member, in continuing to work with us to find opportunities like this to fund the CSO, SSO grant program.
Mr. Chairman, every community, from Seattle, Washington, to Wheeling, West Virginia, to Syracuse, New York, to Indianapolis, Indiana, stands to benefit from this program. I have heard from many communities, and this is just a small representation of the communities who have written to me expressing their strong desire to have this program fully funded.
President Bush also acknowledged the real problem facing communities in his budget stating, ``To address Federal mandates to control the biggest remaining municipal waste water problem, funds should be used for the newly authorized sewer overflow control grants.''
[Time: 20:00]
I spoke with a constituent just last week, Craig Tetreau from Marlette, Michigan. They have a $3 million problem. Around here, $3 million may not sound like a lot of money. However, 763 families live in the city of Marlette, and they have an annual budget of $2 million for all city services. If they do not make the upgrades, the State has threatened to construct the necessary upgrade at a cost of $11,000 per household.
Similarly the village of Fairgrove, with 233 families, has $1.5 million in upgrading costs.
In Saginaw, Michigan, sewer rates jumped from $10.40 a month in 1989 to over $39 a month in 1999. Another 50 percent rate increase is anticipated. Recently, sewer rates were 2.64 percent of the median household income alone. This is an enormous burden for which Saginaw, like so many other communities across the country, needs help in the form of Federal grant funding assistance that would be provided by this amendment.
I urge every Member to support this critically important amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will clarify that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. BARCIA) was recognized for 10 minutes for this debate, and a Member in opposition will have 10 minutes for this debate.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. BARCIA). We have worked very, very closely with him on a number of issues within this bill. I know he is deeply concerned about water quality in the Great Lakes and about the quality of drinking water in his own community. These are things that he has worked very hard on and cares deeply about.
But what he is asking us to do is to choose which way, almost equivalent to asking us which way would we like to die, would we rather be hung or burned to death. This is a tough choice.
The Superfund program is terribly important, and it is very, very strongly supported by Members. We all know the combined sewer overflow problem this Nation has is in the hundreds of billions of dollars. We cannot take from one and give to the other either way. We have funds set aside for Superfund. There is not enough money, but we have done the best we could.
There is money set aside for combined sewer overflows through the Clean Water grants and special grants, close to $1.5 billion. It is not enough. There is more need out there. We all understand that. But we cannot take from Superfund $150 million, or $140 million. If we did, it would dramatically reduce the pace of Superfund clean-ups across the country. Every aspect of the Superfund program, but particularly the cleanup or Response program, would be impacted, and none of the agency's Superfund goals would be met, so the program would suffer dramatically. Funding to State programs would be reduced; communities would wait longer for their sites to be addressed.
I know there are a number of Members who feel very strongly about Superfund issues. Superfund sites do a lot of damage to the land, air and water . We have to make these projects a priority. We would lose 50 to 100 ongoing cleanup projects which would be slowed or stopped. The EPA would be unable to start toxic waste clean-ups at dozens of Superfund sites. Construction and completion would fall by one-third. Up to 150 potential sites identified by States would not be evaluated for their potential risks to human health and the environment.
So, Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. MOLLOHAN).
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, the Superfund program is funded at $1.2 billion, which is barely enough. It is at the President's request, and barely enough to cover the responsibilities which Superfund is charged to cover. We are talking about toxic waste cleanup; we are talking about carcinogenic substances that are real hazards to people.
I know the gentleman from Michigan had a terrible time in finding offsets in this bill. If we try to do it, it is extremely difficult. Even though he has gone to this account, I know he strongly supports the Superfund program.
Having said that, the gentleman raises a very important issue here. The funding need for water infrastructure is one of the most pressing issues addressed in this bill. A needs survey conducted by the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates our wastewater needs to be approximately $12 billion annually to replace aging facilities and comply with existing and future Federal water regulations. The funding in this bill does not even begin to touch that need.
Controlling sewer overflows continues to be a priority mandate imposed on communities by the EPA regulatory and enforcement programs, and it will continue to be a financing issue that communities around the country will have to confront.
It is terribly difficult for communities to even begin to contemplate being able to marshall the resources to solve this problem. So I understand the issue that the gentleman is bringing before the Congress today. It is an important issue. I compliment him bringing it to our attention.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. BARCIA) has been at the forefront of fighting for funding for water projects and for wastewater overflow projects, and he is to be commended for that.
However, I am reluctantly going to oppose his amendment because of the offset that he proposes, and hope that in the future we will find additional funds to address the very excruciating need that he brings to our attention.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LATOURETTE).
[Page: H4831] GPO's PDF
Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
I want to voice my strong support for his amendment seeking to provide relief for local communities that today are shouldering up to 90 percent of the burden of revamping their wastewater treatment facilities.
The American Waterworks Association unveiled its new study that predicts required spending of more than $250 billion over the next 30 years to take care of this problem. In the last Congress, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. BARCIA) led the charge in the Congress with the Wet Weather Quality Act, together with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. PASCRELL). The language is included in the Labor-HHS bill over in the Senate that provided a landmark 2-year grant program to be administered by the EPA.
We are not alone. We had a little hearing in front of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment earlier this year, and Administrator Whitman was in front of us. We said they have to provide money for the State revolving loan fund and this grant money as well, because communities cannot take it across the country.
The President put in $450 million in his budget for this program. While I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. WALSH), who certainly understands the program and the problems as well as anybody in this Congress, the fact is that while the subcommittee has funded the State revolving loan fund and is willing to give loans to communities, there is no grant program in place that would take care of this problem across the Nation.
I want to just bring up one example, not in my district, but it is in Worcester, Massachusetts. To build a single-family home, one has to pay a $16,000 tap-in fee. Who in this Congress, Mr. Chairman, could pay $16,000 to flush the toilet to build a single-family new house? But that is the problem facing not only the folks in Worcester, Massachusetts; but it is the problem facing all of America today if we do not do something.
I would say to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, if we go back to the Contract with America in the very first bill the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. PORTMAN) introduced, the unfunded mandate legislation, this Congress, this Federal Government, has mandated all of these initiatives upon the wastewater treatment plants of the small municipalities in this country, but has not sent the money.
It is time to send the money. It is time to pass the Barcia amendment. It is too bad that the rules indicate we have to make an offset on the basis of the Superfund allocation, but this money needs to be sent to the small communities of America.
I praise the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. BARCIA) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. PASCRELL), and I urge an aye vote.
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. PASCRELL).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin where the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LATOURETTE) left off. The Clean Water Act provides very specific mandates for municipalities.
I was a mayor, mayor of the third largest city in the State of New Jersey. There is no way that the Patersons of this country, smaller, larger, can respond to this multibillion dollar need within our communities. Our clean water is threatened, is threatened if we do not begin to address, and we have, this problem.
I am positive that the chairman and the ranking member are sensitive to these needs. But being sensitive to the needs, we need to take it to the next level. We need to be in every mayor's office, in every council chambers throughout America when these issues are coming up.
Crumbling systems exist throughout America. We need to respond. The cost is great. If we do not do it, the cost will be even greater.
One segment of the President's proposed budget I was particularly pleased with, which was where the President expressed his support for the newly authorized sewer overflow control grants. H.R. 828, which passed the Congress, authorized $750 million in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. We are trying to give cities and towns across America the resources they need to clean up their sewer systems and comply with the Clean Water Act.
I am hopeful that we can work with the committee to ensure that full funding is included in the final bill to address this issue, which is important in every district and in every State in this Nation. We must follow through on our commitment to local governments to assist in their wet-weather infrastructure challenges, and I support this critical down payment.
I recognize the hard work of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. BARCIA) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LATOURETTE).
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. LARSEN).
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of this amendment. Grant funding to help communities control sewer overflows was approved and authorized in the last Congress; but in this Congress, in this House, in this budget, no funds have been set aside at all. Congress must follow through and fund this important program.
Back home in my district, I can point to the city of Everett, Snohomish, Anacordis, three cities with some of the highest sewer rates in my district. Everett alone has invested in excess of $12 million since 1990 towards reducing and controlling CSOs; and despite the substantial financial commitment, nearly $20 million more is required for the city to reach full compliance with all local, State , and Federal mandates.
Federal funding will be crucial to the city's efforts to reach full compliance, so it is my hope that this Congress can step up to help our communities by providing this funding.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of their communities, to vote in favor of this amendment. I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. BARCIA) for his work on this amendment.
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief in closing. I have discussed this with my ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. MOLLOHAN). We both appreciate not only the sentiment but the leadership that has been provided on this issue. It is a real big issue for the country.
But to force us to choose between Superfund and CSOs is just too tough a choice to make. We would urge the gentleman, with all due respect, to withdraw the amendment; and he should continue to work with the authorizing committee and with the Committee on Appropriations to see if we can do a better job of meeting this commitment. It is a question of allocation and choices, and we just cannot justify the choice he is asking us to make. I would ask again that he would withdraw the amendment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I rise today in support of the Barcia/Latourette amendment to HR 2620. This amendment would increase the bills funding for EPA Water Improvement Grants--with the intention that these funds would be used for grants for combined sewer overflows.
Mr. Chairman, the condition of our Nation's wastewater collection and treatment facilities is alarming. In its 1999 clear water needs survey, the EPA estimated that nearly $200 billion will be needed over the next 20 years to address wastewater infrastructure problems in our communities.
In Lynchburg, Virginia, the cost of improving 174 miles of combined sewers that serve 11.4 square miles exceeds $275 million in 2000 dollars. This equates to $16,875 per ratepayer in a city whose average income is $27,500. These CSO improvements are by far the largest capital projects the city has ever undertaken.
Given this great need, I believe the Federal Government has a responsibility to assist communities that are trying to fix their problems and comply with Federal water quality mandates.
I strongly urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment which will increase funding for the Clean Water Revolving Loan Program and help cities in need of meeting Federal mandates.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
[Page: H4832] GPO's PDF
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. BARCIA).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, 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 CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. BARCIA) will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND
For necessary expenses to carry out leaking underground storage tank cleanup activities authorized by section 205 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and for construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project, $72,000,000, to remain available until expended.
| <<< | >>> |
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display