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
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2002 and each fiscal year thereafter, such sums as are necessary to carry out this Act.
By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. ENSIGN):
S. 503. A bill to amend the Safe Water Act to provide grants to small public drinking water systems; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have spent a great deal of time, as we should, focusing on President Bush's tax cut. There are some differences that have been noted on numerous occasions. My point is, there are many other issues about which we need to be engaged.
Yesterday in the Environment and Public Works Committee, we did some very good work. We reported a bill out of that committee dealing with brownfields. The Acting President pro tempore, who is presiding, was a cosponsor of that legislation last year. It is very important legislation. It will allow the cleanup of about 450,000 sites that now are blighted sites, most of them in city centers--where there may have been a dry cleaner there before, or there may have been some business--and there may be some toxic substances in the ground.
This legislation will allow the cleanup to go forward. It will allow these places to become productive.
We have already identified, for example, in Nevada, some 30 sites that need to be cleaned up, producing hundreds of jobs and millions and millions of dollars on the tax rolls. We did this. It shows that we can do things on a bipartisan basis.
The subcommittee is run by Senators Boxer and Chafee. They work very
[Page: S2120] GPO's PDF
I hope, with the schedule that we have, we can have this on the floor, and we can pass this out of here, and send it to the House, within the next month. It is good legislation.
Mr. President, communities in Nevada and nationwide are facing a crisis in their ability to provide clean, affordable drinking water to the public.
Dramatic population growth in some areas of the country has only increased the demand for more drinking water .
At the same time, standards are being adopted by local, State , and Federal governments to assure the safety of drinking water supplies.
Because of this, communities all across the country are facing the need to install, upgrade, and replace their drinking water infrastructure . That is why I and Senator ENSIGN are introducing the Small Community Safe Drinking Water Funding Act.
However, the cost of putting this infrastructure in place is staggeringly high. The Environmental Protection Agency has recently estimated that to meet the Nation's needs, our communities' drinking water infrastructure will require an investment of more than $150 billion over the next 20 years.
While communities of all sizes face the crisis in drinking water infrastructure , the greatest burden is on small communities.
For example, the per-household cost for water infrastructure improvements is almost four times higher for small systems than for large ones.
One reason for this disproportionate impact is that small public drinking water systems are so numerous--representing nearly 95 percent of all systems. It is that way in Nevada and most western states.
In my home State of Nevada, the percentage is even greater. Upwards of 98 percent of public drinking water systems in the Silver State are small systems.
Also, because small communities lack the tax base and economies-of-scale of larger communities, they typically incur much higher per-household costs in upgrading their drinking water infrastructure improvements.
In Nevada alone, small communities will need to invest hundreds of millions of dollars over the next 20 years in drinking water infrastructure .
The dilemma faced by small communities has been highlighted recently by EPA's new drinking water standard for arsenic.
Arsenic is a naturally occurring contaminant that impacts drinking water supplies in Nevada, and other States throughout the west and northeast.
The public health threat posed by arsenic in drinking water is well-established by scientists.
Despite the public health need, many small communities will find it extremely difficult to finance improvements needed to meet the arsenic standard.
This is because EPA estimates that compliance with this standard will increase annual household water costs in communities of less than 10,000 people from between $38 to $327--an increase in water costs roughly 10 times greater than for communities with more than 10,000 people.
In Nevada, we have very few communities of more than 10,000. We have Las Vegas, Reno, Henderson, Sparks, Elko, Carson City. This has a tremendous impact in Nevada.
Due to these costs to small communities, some have called for the standard to be rolled back. In fact, the Bush administration has held up the implementation of the regulation, and is currently considering whether or not to nullify it.
A roll-back of the new arsenic drinking water standard would be a serious mistake.
The old drinking water standard for arsenic had not been revised in over 55 years.
In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the scientific data on arsenic and urged EPA to implement a lower, more protective standard as quickly as possible.
The new EPA arsenic standard--the one currently under review by the Bush Administration--was set at the very level as the standard adopted by the World Health Organization almost a decade ago.
Undoing EPA's new arsenic standard would deny millions of American families access to safe drinking water .
Rolling back this standard is simply the wrong way to ensure clean, reliable, and affordable water to all Americans.
The right way to address the new arsenic standard, as well as the crisis this country faces with its drinking water infrastructure , is for the Federal Government to provide a helping hand to communities to meet their drinking water needs.
Take my home State of Nevada for example. The city of Fallon, a small, rural community in the northwest part of the State , has been wrestling with high levels of naturally-occurring arsenic in its public water supply for decades. When I served in the State legislature in the 1960s, this was a problem. It still is.
Despite the difficulties involved in solving its arsenic problem, the city is not asking for a roll-back of EPA's new arsenic standard.
On the contrary, the city very much wants to meet the new standard so that it can provide safe drinking water to its citizens.
What the city needs, in order to accomplish this, is our financial help. It is a national problem, and we should help.
I should add, even though there is naturally occurring arsenic in the water in Fallon, it may have been exacerbated by a Federal project, the first Bureau of Reclamation project in the history of the country, in 1902, when it sent water from the Truckee River into Churchill County. It may have raised the arsenic level higher than it would have been otherwise.
Currently, the primary source of Federal assistance for local drinking water projects is the EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund.
This fund--which I, along with others on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, helped add to the Safe Drinking Water Act when it was amended in 1996--has been an overwhelming success.
Since its inception, the Fund has allowed States to provide more than 1,200 low-interest loans totaling over $2.3 billion for upgrading and installing drinking water systems.
However, many small and disadvantaged communities are left out of the State revolving fund program.
Many of these communities do not attempt to participate in the program because they lack the financial resources to meet the terms of loans.
Although we added a provision to the act in 1996 allowing loans to be subsidized for disadvantaged communities, a significant number of States have not taken advantage of it.
Therefore, many small, cash-strapped communities receive little or no financial assistance form the Federal Government, at a time when they are faced with costly improvements to systems like that of Fallon, NV.
Today, I and Senator ENSIGN introduce a bill to address the needs of communities that face the greatest difficulties in ensuring clean drinking water for their residents.
It will ensure that our Nation's small, disadvantaged communities have access to the financial help they need to provide safe, reliable, and affordable drinking water .
This bill, the Small Community Safe Drinking Water Funding Act, accomplishes this goal by establishing a program to provide almost $750 million annually to Indian tribes and States, so they can make grants to public water systems that serve small communities.
I would like to highlight several key aspects of the bill:
First, the Small Community Safe Drinking Water Act provides substantial flexibility to States.
Each State choosing to participate in the grant program will receive an allocation of money from EPA, based on the drinking water infrastructure needs of that State .
The State can then distribute this money as grants according to the State's own prioritization of communities' needs.
Second, the act streamlines the workload associated with a new grant program by taking advantage of procedures already in place through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program.
The identification of communities in most need of grant support is coordinated with the annual ``Intended Use Plans'' already required of States by the State revolving fund.
[Page: S2121] GPO's PDF
States can also administer grants through the same agencies that currently administer State revolving fund loans.
Third, the drinking water treatment needs of Indian tribes and Alaskan native villages are addressed through a $22.5 million EPA-administered grants program modeled after the one established for States.
This money will be targeted, in the form of grants, to those small communities determined to be in most need of drinking water system improvements.
Finally, the act ensures that small, disadvantaged communities receiving grants have access to technical assistance through non-profit organizations.
These organizations have established relationships with small communities, as well as a solid track record in helping these communities to solve their drinking water problems.
These organizations will be able to assist small communities to plan, implement, and maintain the drinking water projects funded through grants.
Nevada's small communities are facing a drinking water infrastructure crisis.
These communities, and other small communities nationwide, confront increasing demand for clean, reliable, and affordable drinking water .
But it is simply too costly for small communities, alone, to address this water infrastructure crisis.
They need a financial helping hand from the Federal Government.
The bill I and Senator ENSIGN are introducing today will provide this much-needed Federal helping hand.
I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation and work with us to see that it is swiftly enacted.
By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. INOUYE, and Mr. BINGAMAN):
S. 504. A bill for administrative procedures to extend Federal recognition to certain Indian groups, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators INOUYE and BINGAMAN in introducing the Indian Tribal Federal Recognition Administrative Procedures Act of 2001. From the first days of the republic, the Congress has acted to recognize the unique legal and political relationship the United States has with the Indian tribes. Reforming the process of Federal recognition is the purpose of the legislation I am introducing today.
Federal recognition is critical to tribal groups because it triggers eligibility for services and benefits provided by the United States because of their status as members of federally recognized Indian tribes.
I want to be clear, I am not advocating for the approval of every petition for recognition, and I am not proposing that the petitions receive a limited or cursory review. I am concerned with the viability of the current recognition process and am interested in seeing fairness, promptness, and finality brought into that process while providing basic assurances to already-recognized tribes regarding their inherent rights.
Federal recognition may be accomplished in two ways: through the enactment of federal legislation; or through the administrative process that occurs, or more accurately does not occur, within the Branch of Acknowledgement and Research, BAR.
Over the years, the length of time the Bureau has taken to process certain petitions and the process for which applications for recognition are considered has increased. At a hearing on similar legislation in 2000, one group testified that its petition has been pending since 1970!
The process in the Department of the Interior is time consuming and costly, although it has improved from its original state . It has frequently been hindered by a lack of staff and resources which are needed to fairly and promptly review all petitions.
The cases on active consideration, including those with proposed findings, have been in the process for anywhere from 2 to 9 years.
As with any decision-making body, fairness and timeliness are the keys to maintaining a credible system which holds the confidence of affected parties. I believe that it is in the interests of all parties to have a clear deadline for the completion of the recognition process.
In 1978, the Department of the Interior promulgated regulations to establish criteria and procedures for the recognition of Indian tribes by the Secretary of Interior.
Since that time tribal groups have filed 250 letters of intent and petitions for review and consideration. Of those, 51 have been resolved, 34 by the BAR.
The remainder are in various stages of consideration by the Department either ready for active status or are already placed on active status.
In the last twenty years, the Committee on Indian Affairs has held several oversight hearings on the Federal recognition process. At those hearings the record clearly showed that the process does not work. At a Committee on Indian Affairs hearing in 1995, the Bureau testified that at the current rate of review and consideration, it would take several decades to eliminate the entire backlog of tribal petitions. The record from numerous previous hearings reveals a clear need for the Congress to address the problems affecting the recognition process.
The bill I am introducing today will go a long way toward resolving the problems which have plagued both the Department of the Interior and
tribal petitioners over the years.
This bill, the Indian Tribal Federal Recognition Administrative Procedures Act of 2001, provides the required clarification and changes that will help tribal petitioners and the United States in providing fair and orderly administrative procedures to extend Federal recognition to eligible Indian groups. The principal purpose is to remove the Federal acknowledgment process from the BAR and transfer the responsibility for the process to a temporary and independent Commission on Indian Tribal Recognition.
This bill provides that the Commission will be an independent agency, composed of three members appointed by the President, and authorized to hold hearings, take testimony, and reach final determinations on petitions for recognition.
The bill provides strict but realistic time-lines to guide the Commission in the review and decision-making process. Under the existing process, some petitioners have waited ten years or more for even a cursory review of their petition.
This bill will allow for a cost-effective process for the BIA and the petitioners, it will provide definite time-lines for the administrative recognition process, and sunsets the Commission in 12 years.
To ensure fairness, the bill provides for appeals of adverse decisions to the federal district court here in the District of Columbia.
To ensure that the views and comments of all affected parties are considered, the bills directs the Commission to consider evidence and materials submitted by states, local communities, and State attorneys general.
To ensure promptness, the bill authorizes adequate funding for the costs of processing petitions through the Commission.
The bill also provides finality for both the petitioners and the Department by requiring all interested tribal groups to file their petitions with 8 years after the date of enactment and requiring the Commission to complete to work within 12 years from enactment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD, and urge my colleagues to join me in enacting this much-needed reform legislation.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Indian Tribal Federal Recognition Administrative Procedures Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are as follows:
(1) To remove the Federal acknowledgment process from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and transfer the responsibility for the process to an independent Commission on Indian Tribal Recognition.
(2) To establish a Commission on Indian Tribal Recognition to review and act upon documented petitions submitted by Indian groups that apply for Federal recognition.
[Page: S2122] GPO's PDF
| <<< | >>> |
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