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 PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion has been made to table the amendment.
[Page: S8653] GPO's PDF
Mr. CRAIG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. I understand that is within the unanimous consent time sequence that has already been established.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. CRAIG. I yield back the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back on the Schumer amendment.
AMENDMENT NO. 1229
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time between now and 1:55 p.m. is evenly divided among the two managers of the bill and the Senator from Arizona. Does the Senator from Arizona seek recognition?
Mr. KYL. Yes. I thank the Chair. First, I have two unanimous consent requests. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, and the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, be added as cosponsors to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
AMENDMENT NO. 1229, AS MODIFIED
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have a modification to my amendment at the desk and I ask that the amendment be modified accordingly. A copy has been provided to Senator Mikulski.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification? Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
On page 105, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
SEC. 4__. STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of the funds made available under the heading ``STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS'' in title III for capitalization grants for the Clean Water State Revolving Funds under title VI of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) shall be expended by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency except in accordance with the formula for allocation of funds among recipients developed under subparagraph (D) of section 1452(a)(1) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-12(a)(1)(D)) (including under a regulation promulgated under that section before the date of enactment of this Act) and in accordance with the wastewater infrastructure needs survey conducted under section 516 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1375), except that--
(1) subject to paragraph (3), the proportional share under clause (ii) of section 1452(a)(1)(D) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-12(a)(1)(D)) shall be a minimum of 0.675 percent and a maximum of 8.00 percent;
(2) any State the proportional share of which is greater than that minimum but less than that maximum shall receive 97.50 percent of the proportionate share of the need of the State ; and
(3) the proportional share of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands shall be, in the aggregate, 0.25 percent.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I believe there is only one other speaker besides myself. I am informed Senator Fitzgerald is on his way. When he arrives, he will address the amendment, and after that, other than myself, as I said, I do not think there are any other speakers, unless the distinguished assistant majority leader wishes to be recognized to comment at this point.
Mr. President, I apologize for one bit of confusion, and I thank the Senator from Maryland, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, for catching an error. The wrong section was cited in one part of the amendment. She correctly noted we had referred to the wrong section, and the modification which has just been adopted refers to the right section. I apologize for any confusion that might have caused.
I do think it has caused some confusion because I am in receipt of one document which I understand has been circulated to some Members of the majority that criticizes the amendment in two primary ways, the first of which is a suggestion that this amendment uses the same formula as used in the drinking water section of the bill. I suspect the citing of the section might have created some of that confusion.
It has been clear from the outset, as I have described this over and over and I went through the description with the Senator from Virginia, that the whole point of this amendment is to use a formula which is based upon a needs survey established by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to wastewater treatment. I pointed out that there are two such needs-based surveys: One relates to drinking water ; one relates to wastewater.
Obviously, the drinking water needs survey should relate to drinking water . That is exactly what the law provides. That is the survey that is used for the formula for drinking water . By the same token, the wastewater needs survey should apply to wastewater, but it does not. The law today has a different formula and it is very difficult to understand the origins. As near as anybody can figure out, it relates to a construction grants program that was in existence in the 1970s. It has nothing to do with this needs survey.
We say, just as we should have a needs survey by EPA driving the decisions for drinking water , which we do, we should have a similar kind of formula for wastewater. The wastewater formula is not based on the drinking water needs survey, it is based on the wastewater needs survey.
I note, in this document that has been circulated at least among some Members of the majority, that the criticism is we should not have the same formula apply to drinking water apply to wastewater. It does not. To the extent there was confusion because one of the sections was miscited in the amendment, I apologize for that, again. I thank the Senator from Maryland for allowing me to make that correction.
We are talking about two different needs surveys, two different formulas. We simply want the type of needs survey EPA conducts to apply to the formula in this case.
The second item I want to point out about the document is a complete error in one of its comments. I quote from this document:
A number of other States, for example, Ohio, Illinois, Florida, Indiana, and New Jersey, would receive reduced allocations.
I assure all my colleagues from those States that is not only true, but the reality is that the States cited are among the States that receive the highest benefits of the formula change--Ohio, Illinois, Florida, Indiana, and New Jersey. In fact, I think they are the highest. Let me go through the numbers precisely.
For the State of Ohio, it would today receive $76,845,000. Under the formula, the pending amendment, it would receive $78,423,000. The net increase is $3,577,000, when you take the earmarks into account.
For the State of Illinois, which I think receives the highest benefit--I confess to the Presiding Officer, I do not know why Illinois would have been so shortchanged in the past, but I appreciate his willingness to cosponsor the amendment because of the clear discrepancy--under the current allocation, the State of Illinois would receive $61,735,000. Under the pending amendment, Illinois would receive $108 million, which is a net gain of $48,764,000, again taking into account the $2.5 million earmarks.
That is an increase from $61 to $108 million. The next State cited is Florida. Florida goes from $46 million to $55 million; Indiana goes from $32 million to $50 million; New Jersey goes from $55 million to almost $75 million.
This document floating around titled ``Comments on Kyl Amendment,'' is not only in error; it is almost 180 degrees off. I can't explain why anyone would make this conclusion. The miscitation of the section number has nothing to do with these numbers. Somebody has grossly misunderstood the amendment, misunderstood the charts or the formula, or in some other way deliberately misstated the facts.
I say to my Democratic colleagues who might have received this document, ``Comments on Kyl Amendment,'' this page-and-a-half document is wrong. It is wrong in the first half because we are not using the same formula as the safe drinking water formula. And it is wrong in the second half, for what reason I don't know, but it is grossly wrong. It could not be more wrong with respect to the States it claims are receiving reductions. Those States happen to be the States receiving the largest increases.
For the benefit of my colleagues who were not here for the earlier part of the debate, let me explain what we are talking about while I am waiting for
[Page: S8654] GPO's PDF
As Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond have eloquently pointed out, it is always a struggle to get the funding to fill these needs, but they have done a great job in getting additional funding this year for that purpose.
The problem is, whereas the drinking water portion is allocated on the basis of EPA's recommendations and what they call the needs survey, there is no such reference to EPA recommendations with respect to wastewater treatment. Instead, we are reverting to a formula based on 1970s data. It has never been updated since the action was put into place in 1987.
There is a legitimate suggestion we ought to go to the authorizing committee to try to fix this. The authorizing committee has had 14 years to try to correct this, and my staff has repeatedly tried to make contact with people to see if they would be interested in doing it.
Thus far, we have not had any success. Despite the fact that the chairman of the committee has indicated his willingness to take up the reauthorization this fall, there is no commitment to take up a modification of the formula to meet the needs of the high gross States about which I have been talking. There is absolutely no reason to think we will succeed this year in modifying the formula through the authorizing committee. Even if we were to succeed in doing that, the States I named would receive tremendous shortfalls for the fiscal year 2002. There is no way to fix it for the fiscal year 2002. I have a couple of communities in my State that are in dire need of this funding. There is no way they can get it.
We suggested this formula change, which is very simple. It says we should use the needs survey of the EPA and provide 97.5 percent of the funding available in accordance with that recommendation, and we have a minimum and a maximum so that no State gets more than 8 percent and no State gets less than the minimum we provide. That is similar to other formulas. It is very fair. It is very simple. It is easy to apply. The net result, based upon the charts I showed earlier, will go a significant degree toward not only providing funding for those States and localities that need it the most, but reducing the significant unfairness in the formula that exists today. That is what we are talking about. It is that simple.
For those Senators from the following States, I hope since they will receive more money--again, let me note we are not affecting earmarks. We have included the earmarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time controlled by the Senator from Arizona has expired.
Ms. MIKULSKI. First, an inquiry about the time. Did the Senator from Arizona consume the time to be allocated to the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Fitzgerald?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. KYL. I inquire of the Senator from Maryland, maybe I misunderstood the unanimous consent request. I thought because the Schumer time had been yielded back that all the remaining time was divided.
Ms. MIKULSKI. That is correct. That is my understanding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state the time is parsed into three allocations, three 10-minute segments: One for the Senator from Arizona, one each for the chairman of the subcommittee, and the ranking member.
Mr. KYL. I say to Senator Mikulski, if Senator Fitzgerald arrives, perhaps we can accommodate him in some way.
Ms. MIKULSKI. As I understand, the distinguished ranking member has 10 minutes. I am sure he will be happy to yield. We will not preclude Senator Fitzgerald from offering a comment.
We have debated the contents on this bill for a good part of the morning. I think it has been a very constructive debate and a civil debate, which we hope the Senate would be.
I will talk about process for a minute. The Kyl amendment is legislating on appropriations. Ordinarily, I would offer a point of order exactly on that, to knock it down on the point of order under the rules of the Senate.
Because of something the House did--and remember, we work off the House bill, as I understand it, and I believe the Senator's analysis is accurate. We are not able to do that, so this will be a straight up or down--it will not be straight up or down. Either Senator Bond and I have declared our intent to offer a motion to table, which I am not yet offering, but we really are legislating on appropriations. This is so complicated.
Even with the good will from the standpoint of the Senator from Arizona, myself, and Senator Bond, the ranking member, where we tried to explain this formula over that formula or that survey, it shows how complex this is. In fairness, to make sure we have a formula that works for constituents, works for the communities, works for the taxpayer, we cannot deal with this formula on the Senate floor. This truly must be done through the authorizing process.
I acknowledge the problems the Senator from Arizona has had when he says it has been 14 years and it is time to take a new look and a fresh look. Acknowledging the need for a new and fresh look, I also encourage the Senator in the most collegial tone possible, to also be in discussions with the very able administrator of EPA. I have found Administrator Whitman to be able, accessible, interested in hearing about specific issues and specific problems. We did bring the Senator's amendment to the EPA staff. They furnished a very competent analysis.
In fact, it was through them that we identified the error in the drafting.
I do not really recommend that this amendment be agreed to. We really do not know the consequences of the amendment. There is no way to evaluate the consequences of the amendment. It could have very dire effects.
There is no latitude to offer a point of order. We will be offering a motion to table the amendment, but we do not want to table the problem.
The problem is a real problem. This is why, again, with the encouragement of the authorizers, I really share with my colleagues, working with Administrator Whitman has been a very positive experience from this Senator's viewpoint. I suggest perhaps the Senator and colleagues who are so passionate about this issue, as they have expressed themselves on the floor, meet with her and get EPA to start working on the analysis of exactly the consequences, which we would need should we come to an authorizing hearing. Then, if the authorizing hearings do not quite get to it, we would have the benefit of their analysis and their thinking.
Let's not table the problem. One of us will move to table this amendment. But, again, I do not want to table the problem.
I know the time is growing short. We are awaiting Senator FITZGERALD. We know Senator Bond is temporarily off the floor at a meeting with some of his Republican colleagues. I believe the moderates are meeting. He is available.
I will reserve my time for the end. I ask the Presiding Officer, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland has 3 minutes 10 seconds remaining. The Senator from Missouri has 10 minutes.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I inquire of the Senator from Illinois how much time he will need.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Only a couple of minutes; 5 minutes will be fine.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent 5 minutes from the time of the minority be allocated to the Senator from Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for her generosity.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Maryland for yielding me the time.
I rise to support my friend from Arizona, Senator Kyl, and compliment
[Page: S8655] GPO's PDF
As I understand it, Senator Kyl's new formula is based on the same formula that is used in the safe drinking water revolving fund. It certainly will make for a better need-based distribution of these important allocations of funds for wastewater treatment around the country.
I rise to support Senator Kyl's amendment. I understand the Presiding Officer has joined as a cosponsor. This seems to be good legislation for our State and a majority of States around the country. We all know from local communities around our States how important these funds are for these water treatment projects.
I hope we will have a majority vote in favor of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Allen from Virginia be also listed as a cosponsor.
| <<< | >>> |
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