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    

Ask the gang back home. Go to the town square and ask them. How many

[Page: S8645]  GPO's PDF

   That is just common sense. I don't believe there is any evidence on the other side.

   Having that said, if PHA believes it will make everybody feel good, and if they think it will help to use money for a gun buyback program, go for it.

   But I tell you it is one program that I just think doesn't meet the commonsense test. It just does not make any sense to me.

   I urge my colleagues to leave the discretion with the public housing authorities and not seek to take money away from security needs, or from other things, or from programs that have some questions about it.

   I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from Arizona is recognized.

   Mr. McCAIN. Thank you, Mr. President.

   First of all, I thank the managers of this bill for their courtesy. I know they appreciate the fact that we had a markup of some important legislation this morning in the Commerce Committee. I apologize for any delay that may have caused in completing this very important appropriations bill. I thank the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Missouri for their courtesy in not only allowing me to speak on the amendment of my colleague from Arizona but also for allowing me to propose my amendment.

   I understand that it is the wish of the managers that it be laid aside after I propose it, and then I would speak on it after 2 o'clock. I ask the Senator from Maryland if that is the case.

   Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arizona repeat his question?

   Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, my understanding of the parliamentary procedure is that at this time I will speak on behalf of the Kyl amendment, propose my amendment, then ask that it be laid aside, and that I would be allowed to speak on my amendment after the two votes at 2 o'clock.

   Ms. MIKULSKI. If the Senator will withhold, we have a very complicated unanimous consent here to accommodate Senators. I wish to bring to the Senator's attention that at about 5 until 2 we are going to have two votes: one on Kyl and one on Schumer. Then we will be happy for the Senator to send up his amendment. Maybe we will not be happy with the Senator's amendment, but we will be happy for the Senator to offer it.

   Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Maryland.

   Again, I express my appreciation for her accommodation. I know it is difficult to accommodate each Senator who has a very busy schedule. I thank the managers for their accommodation to mine.

   AMENDMENT NO. 1229

   I rise to support my colleague, Senator KYL, as a cosponsor of his amendment to the VA-HUD appropriations bill. I believe this is a very good amendment, one that is entirely appropriate to this bill as it directly relates to a more fair distribution of Federal dollars for water and wastewater infrastructure needs among the 50 States and territories of our nation.

   This amendment is simple--it will address a funding inequity in EPA funding by applying the formula under the Safe Drinking Water Act revolving loan fund to the Clean Water Act revolving loan fund for fiscal year 2002.

   Why is this important?

   For about 12 years, the EPA has managed a Clean Water State revolving loan fund for capitalization purposes to construct water infrastructure and related projects. The funds are distributed on a State -by-State basis and utilized as seed money for State -administered loans for water infrastructure needs. It operates as an important source of capital with State flexibility to set their own priorities.

   Back in 1996, the Safe Drinking Water Act was amended to establish a similar State revolving loan fund to address safe drinking water infrastructure needs.

   While these two operating loan funds are similar in intent, the Clean Water revolving loan fund utilizes outdated information in its allocation distributions. As my colleague, Senator KYL, has noted, it's very difficult to address the various States' growing needs when the allocation formula is based on information relevant to the 1970's.

   I would like to describe how my State has changed since the 1970s. We have grown from a very small State in the 1970s with two Members of Congress. As a result of the latest census, we are now a very medium to a large State that will now have eight members of our congressional delegation. Our State has grown, according to the 1990 to the 2000 census, in a 10-year period 40 percent--40-percent growth in a 10-year period.

   There has been similar growth in other States in the West. New Mexico, Colorado, California, and a number of other States have grown significantly--perhaps not percentage-wise as large as ours but certainly in the case of numbers; Nevada has also experienced dramatic growth.

   What Senator Kyl and I are arguing here is that there needs to be a reformulation to reflect demographic reality.

   I want to point out what everyone who lives west of the Mississippi knows. Water is more precious than gold. Water is the limiting factor in the growth of our States in the West. Water is what will be and has been the cause of major disputes throughout the West.

   I believe Mark Twain said that in the West whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting. Mark Twain had it right because water is the key factor in the ability of our States to sustain the growth and maintain a lifestyle that allows people to choose to move to the West and have the kind of lifestyle that they deserve.

   The formula has not been updated to consider states with substantial growth or more recent documented needs established by the EPA in its own analyses.

   In contrast, the similar Safe Drinking Water revolving loan fund has been operating by the designated allocation formula under the 1996 Act that required the EPA to allocate funding according to the agency's Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey. While these two revolving funds are substantially similar, only one uses updated and relevant data. This is an unfortunate discrepancy and it should be fixed.

   This amendment simply tries to fulfill the intended purpose of the original Clean Water Act by allocating important Federal dollars on a needs-based system that is current and valid to the States' identified priorities.

   Communities in my home State of Arizona have been frustrated by the formula distribution inequity as their water and wastewater needs continue to be underfunded and ignored. The Arizona State water authority estimates it may have lost out on $250-300 million due to the oversight in establishing a fair and updated formula. However, this is not just about Arizona. It is about a majority of the States funded through the current Clean Water revolving loan fund distribution formula whom are facing the same disparities.

   Unfortunately, the Clean Water Act has not been amended since 1987. While authorization for the act expired in 1990, the programs under act are continued by annual appropriations while the Congress continues to work toward a comprehensive reauthorization.

   In the meantime, Congress has circumvented the act by earmarking as much as 30 percent of the general funds available for water and wastewater needs for special interest projects through this appropriations bill. Many of these funded projects are not authorized in the Clean Water Act and do not abide by the funding distributions process identified in the act.

   This continuing earmarking process is not a practice favored by State water quality officials, State infrastructure financing officials, or by the EPA. Earmarking funds from the overall State revolving fund decreases the amount available to other communities that desperately need assistance. It undermines the intent of the State revolving loan fund; it does not allow States to determine their own priorities; and, it prolongs the wait for States to receive the necessary funds to address their water needs.

   In my review of the EPA section of this appropriations bill, I found that one-fourth of the earmarks of the 180 earmarks included in the EPA section are not targeted for States--but for

[Page: S8646]  GPO's PDF

   While I disagree with the earmarking process and I hope that it changes, I also understand that this amendment does not affect those projects identified for funding in this bill under the current water and wastewater accounts.

   We did that, with all due respect, because we knew that if we affected any earmarking, we would remove whatever chance we might have of adoption of this amendment. What it will impact is the undesignated amounts of funding for the clean water revolving loan fund to ensure a more fair and equitable distribution for this coming fiscal year. This is particularly important as this VA-HUD appropriations bill proposes to increase overall funding in this account by $500 million, for a total of $1.35 billion.

   With an estimated $300 billion needed over the next 20 years to fix our existing water systems and build new ones, we simply cannot allow this inequity to continue.

   EPA's guidelines stipulate that the intent of the revolving loan fund is:

   To provide a basis for equal consideration of all eligible water quality projects for state revolving fund funding.

   Let's remedy this problem and fulfill the intent of this important act.

   Mr. President, I would just like to mention my appreciation for Senator Kyl's efforts on this issue. As many of my colleagues may know, Senator Kyl's background in the legal profession was on issues of water . I would put his credentials against those of anyone in this body on this very important issue.

   I already described earlier how important water is in the whole future of the western part of the United States, particularly those of us in the Southwest. Barry Goldwater, my predecessor, used to say quite often, only half humorously: ``We have so little water in Arizona, the trees chase the dogs.'' We have not reached that point yet, but the fact is, what we do need, as in every situation where there have been demographic changes--and in the Southwest and in the West there have been profound demographic changes, as we all know, since the 1970s and the 1980s--we just need to upgrade and modernize this formula.

   We are not asking for a special deal for Arizona. We are not asking for a special deal for any State . We are simply asking--and we are not even affecting the present earmarking process, on which my views are well known in this body--that an update year 2001 formula be implemented so that everyone can receive funding according to the greatest need, again, according to the guidelines that are stipulated, ``to provide a basis for equal consideration of all eligible water quality projects for state revolving fund funding.''

   I thank my colleague from Arizona for bringing forward what some view as an esoteric issue in some respects but a vital issue--a vital issue for all of those States that are now not being treated on an equal basis--of our water supplies and projects.

   So I thank my colleague from Arizona and urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

   Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the amendment to the VA/HUD appropriations bill offered by Senator KYL.

   The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, of which I am the new Chair, has jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act. Through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund provisions of this act, Federal funding is provided to communities throughout the Nation to protect water quality. Senator KYL's amendment would significantly alter the formula'' used in the ``SRF'' to allocate these federal funds among States.

   Last evening, in the debate related to arsenic, many Senators noted the tremendous financial challenge that communities face in continuing to provide clean, affordable drinking water . It is important to recognize that these communities face an equally tremendous challenge when it comes to keeping pace with the wastewater treatment, stormwater management, and other types of water infrastructure they need to protect water quality.

   The Clean Water SRF was specifically designed to help communities meet these water infrastructure needs. However, over the next 20 years, the water infrastructure needs of our Nation are estimated to be as much as $1 trillion--$1 trillion. The current annual level of funding provided through the SRF--averaging roughly $1 billion per year--comes nowhere near meeting needs of this magnitude.

   Because these funds are so desperately needed by so many communities, the Senate should proceed very cautiously when making changes to the Clean Water SRF.

   When I became the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I stated that one of my top priorities was to craft legislation to ensure that the Federal Government meets its responsibility to assist communities in meeting their drinking water and wastewater infrastructure needs. Under the leadership of the now ranking member, Senator SMITH of New Hampshire, the committee has already begun this process.

   I am committed to continuing this effort, and I look forward to working closely with Senator SMITH, the chair and ranking member of our Water Subcommittee, and other members of the committee and the Senate as we move forward.

   The Environment and Public Works Committee will carefully consider a number of issues critical to meeting our national water infrastructure needs as this legislation develops. Among these issues will be the subject addressed by Senator KYL's amendment--the allocation of money to States through the Clean Water SRF.

   We will be thoroughly studying the current ``formula'' used for allocating Federal funds by this program and, if appropriate, we will modify it to ensure it is fair and adequately serves the Nation.

   As I mentioned previously, the tremendous water infrastructure needs faced by our Nation--coupled with inadequacy of Federal resources currently available to help communities meet them--demands that we proceed cautiously.

   I am concerned that changing the funding ``formula'' for the Clean Water SRF in an appropriations bill, as we rush to complete Senate business before August recess, is not such a cautious approach.

   For that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Kyl amendment, and allow the Environment and Public Works Committee the opportunity to craft legislation that reflects a carefully and thorough consideration of the solutions to our Nation's water tremendous infrastructure needs.

   Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I appreciate the issue that my distinguished colleague from Arizona has brought to the attention of the Senate with his amendment, and that is the need to re-evaluate how we distribute funding to the states under the Clean Water Revolving Fund. The Senator is right. It appears that it has been a long time since we took a hard look at where our most pressing infrastructure needs are. And don't get me wrong, Montana looks like it would do very well if Senator KYL's amendment were to succeed.

   But addressing the serious problems that exist with our Nation's water and wastewater infrastructure is something that falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. This is an issue that needs the full time and attention of the authorizing Committee. What is the most appropriate floor, or minimum share for each state , because that's where Montana would fall. What is the most appropriate ceiling? Again, I think this just is too important an issue to address in a short debate over an amendment to an appropriations bill. I understand that this is one of the issues Chairman JEFFORDS plans to take up in the fall, and I will encourage him to do that, because frankly, I agree with Senator KYL that it's high time we took a look at these formulas to make sure we are spending our limited resources in the most efficient and effective way possible.

   AMENDMENT NO. 1226, AS MODIFIED, TO AMENDMENT NO. 1214

   Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, at this time I rise to offer an amendment. I have a modification to my amendment. I believe it is at the desk.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are set aside.

   The clerk will report.

   The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

   The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], proposes an amendment numbered 1226, as modified to amendment No. 1214.

[Page: S8647]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   The amendment, No. 1226, as modified, is as follows:

    On page 105, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

    SEC. 428. (a) REDUCTION IN AMOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR PROJECTS FUNDED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND.--The amount appropriated by title II under the heading ``EMPOWERMENT ZONES/ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES'' under the paragraph ``COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND'' is hereby reduced by $5,000,000. The amount of the reduction shall be derived from the termination of the availability of funds under that paragraph for projects, and in amounts, as follows:

    (1) $375,000 for the Fells Point Creative Alliance of Baltimore, Maryland, for development of the Patterson Center for the Arts.

    (2) $150,000 for the County of Kauai, Hawaii, for the Heritage Trails project.

    (3) $375,000 for infrastructure improvements to the School of the Building Arts in Charleston, South Carolina.

    (4) $50,000 for development assistance for Desert Space Station in Nevada.

    (5) $125,000 for the Center Theatre Group, of Los Angeles, California, for the Culver City Theater project.

    (6) $500,000 for the Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism for development activities related to the Louisiana Purchase Bicentennial Celebration.

<<<

>>>

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