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    

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.

    (7) $225,000 for the City of Providence, Rhode Island, for the development of a Botanical Center at Roger Williams Park and Zoo.

    (8) $100,000 for the Newport Art Museum in Newport, Rhode Island, for historical renovation.

    (9) $125,000 for the City of Wildwood, New Jersey, for revitalization of the Pacific Avenue Business District.

    (10) $150,000 for Studio for the Arts of Pocahontas, Arkansas, for a new facility.

    (11) $500,000 for the Southern New Mexico Fair and Rodeo in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, for infrastructure improvements and to build a multi-purpose event center.

    (12) $500,000 for Dubuque, Iowa, for the development of an American River Museum.

    (13) $500,000 for Sevier County, Utah, for a multi-events center.

    (14) $50,000 to the OLYMPIA ship of Independence Seaport Museum to provide ship repairs which will contribute to the economic development of the Penn's Landing waterfront area in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

    (15) $250,000 for the Lewis and Clark State College, Idaho, for the Idaho Virtual Incubator.

    (16) $500,000 for Henderson, North Carolina, for the construction of the Embassy Cultural Center.

    (17) $50,000 to the Alabama Wildlife Federation for the development of the Alabama Quail Trail in rural Alabama.

    (18) $175,000 for the Urban Development authority of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for the Harbor Gardens Greenhouse project.

    (b) INCREASE IN AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR VETERANS CLAIMS ADJUDICATION.--The amount appropriated by title I under the heading ``DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION'' under the paragraph ``GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES'' is hereby increased by $5,000,000, with the amount of the increase to be available for veterans claims adjudication.

   Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 1226 be modified.

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

   Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl, Senator Graham of Florida, and Senator SMITH of New Hampshire be added as cosponsors.

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

   Mr. McCAIN. At this time I understand it is the wish of the managers that I lay aside this amendment and that we debate it following the votes that will take place beginning at 1:55.

   Mr. REID. I did not hear the request.

   Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be laid aside until following the votes that will take place at 1:55.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

   Without objection, it is so ordered.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.

   AMENDMENT NO. 1231

   Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time remains for both sides on the Schumer amendment?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sponsor has 21 minutes 10 seconds; the opponents have 24 minutes 42 seconds.

   Mr. CRAIG. Could you repeat that? The sponsor has how much time?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sponsor has 21 minutes 10 seconds; the opponents have 24 minutes 42 seconds.

   Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will now speak on the Schumer amendment, and I will use such time as I might consume on that amendment.

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

   The Senator may proceed.

   AMENDMENT NO. 1231

   Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from New York brings an amendment to this Chamber--certainly, I think, with the most sincere of intent--to set aside $15 million; in other words, to mandate the gun surrender program that just a few weeks ago the Bush administration announced it was terminating, largely because it does not work. So what I thought I would do, for the next few moments, is sketch for us the facts about gun surrender programs over the last several years and why they do not work.

   As we know, there is no mandate in the law. President Clinton and Secretary Cuomo changed the description of the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program to allow public housing authorities to make grants available for gun surrender initiatives. It is interesting that of the 1,000 housing authorities this change affected, only about 100 took advantage of the program.

   There is a peculiar reason they took advantage of the program. Very early on, starting back in 1978, it became obvious gun surrender programs were a great photo opportunity for local law enforcement and, in some instances, certain housing agencies or groups. Never mind that they did nothing to deter crime. In fact, they were not taking off the streets guns being used in crimes. It was an opportunity to get rid of some old guns, some antiques, something that filled your closet that your granddad had given you that might not be worth anything and you wanted to get rid of any way; and you did not know how to get rid of it; and along came local law enforcement that said: ``We are going to have a gun surrender program.'' So you take a gun down to the police station and get $50 or $100 or $150 for it.

   The guns turned in belonged to people who least likely were involved in the commission of a crime. For example, senior citizens and spouses who had inherited guns that may have been their husbands' who had passed away were the ones most often who came to sell their guns.

   Some guns turned in were the cheap handguns purchased, as the Senator from Missouri mentioned, for the express purpose of selling them: You go out on the street and buy a gun for $15 or $20 and sell it for $100. Hey, let me tell you, folks are not stupid, they are going to play an advantage if they can find one, and in many instances they did.

   So let me give you a little history.

   In 1978, when we first saw gun buyback programs, overall crime was not significantly reduced in the 17-month period following the gun buyback program in Baltimore, MD. I believe that was the first one, in 1978. Who reports that? The Comptroller General of the United States.

   Then we look at the 1992 Seattle gun surrender program. It too failed. It did not reduce gun injuries, deaths, or crimes. It didn't save anyone from being victimized by crime. But it made for a great photo opportunity.

   In 1996, the program that collected the greatest number of guns, as was mentioned, was the Baltimore program. Yet the rate of gun killings rose 50 percent and gun assaults more than doubled while the program was in effect. This was the largest gun surrender program ever implemented, in terms of the number of guns purchased. Gun deaths shot up 50 percent. And assaults more than doubled.

   If you want politics and you want publicity, then gun surrender programs are great. You can show tables covered with 15- or 20-year-old guns that would never have been used in the commission of a crime. It is a great photo op.

   In 1998, according to the National Institute of Justice looked at various crime fighting measures and asked, ``What doesn't work?'' Their answer? Gun surrender programs. They failed to reduce violent crime in even two more cities: St. Louis, and Seattle.

   Many of us who live part time in this city saw the publicity that went on and the very good-faith effort the Washington, DC, police made in 1999 with

[Page: S8648]  GPO's PDF

   The Senator from New York knows as well as I do that guns used in crimes are typically 9-millimeter or .38 caliber semiautomatic pistols. Those are the ones most often cited in crime reports that are used in the commission of a crime. Such are not the guns collected by these programs.

   Gun surrender programs don't work. That is why the Bush administration--the President, HUD Secretary Martinez--came forward and said: This is a bad use of scarce resources. If we are interested in making public housing safer--and we are--if we are interested in getting drugs out of public housing--and we are--then the $15 million the Senator from New York would waste on photo opportunities would better be used in law enforcement efforts within public housing and elsewhere.

<<<

>>>

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