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    

489

[Page: S8635]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield the floor.

   AMENDMENT NO. 1229 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1214

   Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if there is not an objection by the assistant majority leader or ranking members of the committee, I offer this amendment that was just spoken about.

   I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CARPER). The clerk will report.

   The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

   The Senator from Arizona [Mr. KYL], for himself, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Brownback, proposes an amendment numbered 1229 to amendment No. 1214.

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

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

   The amendment 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 1452(h) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-12(h)), except that--

    (1) subject to paragraph (3), the proportional share under clause (ii) of section 1452(a)(1)(D) of that 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 appreciate the comments of the Senator from New Hampshire a moment ago, but it illustrates exactly why we need this amendment. The Senator, who is the ranking member of the authorizing committee, says we should not be doing this amendment on an appropriations bill, which is the pending business before the Senate; we should allow the amendment to come out of the authorizing committee.

   He is right, in theory, because almost everyone recognizes the current formula for allocating wastewater treatment grants under the EPA's program is unfair. It is way out of date. It is based on 1970s data and, as he noted, especially for growth States, it is woefully inadequate.

   The problem is the authorizing committee has had 14 years to change the formula and has not done so. There comes a time when one's patience begins to wear thin. In representing the interests of the States that are growth States, where needs far exceed what they were back in the 1970s or even 1980s, I think we have an obligation to say enough is enough; it is time to change this formula.

   Almost everyone in this body has at one time or another made note of the fact that one of the unique things about the Senate is any 1 of the 100 Senators can offer amendments to change law or to fix things. In the House of Representatives where I served, it is more difficult to do that because of the numbers of people and the rules.

   The nice thing about the Senate is we have this opportunity. That is why it is frequently the case that amendments are offered on legislation that comes before us, even though it would be nice to deal with that subject in another way. We do it all the time. Mostly we do it when the need is so great, the case is so good, and the degree of fairness involved is such it would be unfair and unwise for us to do anything else.

   I say to my friend from New Hampshire, who says let us take care of it in the authorizing committee, he has had many years to do that. This act has not been reauthorized since it was passed in 1987. It needs to be reauthorized, and it needs to be fixed.

   I commend Senator Jeffords, the new chairman of the committee, for saying he intends to take this up so he can get a reauthorization. I hope that is done, and I hope it is done this fall. I also hope it includes a formula reallocation if we are not able to do it in this bill, but we have heard that story year after year after year and nothing happens. There is a reason nothing happens--because the States that have it good under the formula do not want to change. That is human nature. There is nothing wrong with that. I do not blame them.

   As a simple matter of fairness, if a formula has grown so out of whack over the years that it treats more than half of the people in this country very unfairly, then something needs to be done.

   We have it within our power to do it.

   This amendment is germane and will be ruled such by the Parliamentarian if there is a question about it and, therefore, it will be offered and it will be voted on.

   Since there are far more Senators whose States benefit under this amendment than those that would lose funds because they are getting more than their fair share today, I hope it will be adopted. Those Senators who vote against this amendment, notwithstanding the fact their States benefit, will certainly have some explaining to do to the folks back home.

   What does the amendment do? We have some funds in the Federal Government that help localities construct facilities to ensure their drinking water is safe and that they have good wastewater treatment facilities. These are conducted under the Environmental Protection Agency.

   The EPA does a needs survey every 4 years. It decides what communities need. It does this on a State -by-State basis. We base the allocations of the drinking water fund strictly on the basis of that needs survey because we recognize EPA is not being political in this endeavor. EPA understands what the needs are. It does this survey and says: Here are the communities that need the money the most.

   The formula for the drinking water is based upon that EPA quadrennial needs survey. EPA also does a quadrennial needs survey for wastewater treatment, but we do not base our allocations for wastewater facilities on the basis of that needs survey. No, we base it on a 1970s era construction grant program which has no relevance to wastewater treatment, is way out of date, even if it ever did, is based on 1970 census data, I believe, and, therefore, has been overcome by events and time with respect to the real needs throughout the United States.

   Based on the chart, we can see visually what the situation is. There are several States that have a need, and that need, represented by the red bar, is based on the percentage of need the States are currently receiving. In other words, EPA says: This is how much you need, and then here is how much Congress gives.

   To use my State of Arizona as an example, we can see Arizona receives a very small amount, less than 1 percent. This is why I am offering the amendment. My State is being treated very unfairly. Under the formula which does not provide a 100-percent allocation, Arizona, as all of the other States, would get up to this minimal level. We can see on the chart the blue line for all the States is the same. Those States below the line would be brought up to that level.

   The State of Maryland is the State that has the highest bar on this particular chart. The percentage of current need fulfilled in the State of Maryland is far in excess of my State

[Page: S8636]  GPO's PDF

   What we are saying is, let's even it out and make sure everybody gets at least a percentage of what the EPA says they deserve to have. That is what we are trying to do, to make it fair for everybody.

   Incidentally, the formula change is very simple. The amendment is a two-page amendment. It reads as follows: ``shall be a minimum of 0.675 percent and a maximum of 8.00 percent'' of the needs survey of the EPA. So there is a top and

   a bottom, and within that, everybody receives funds according to the percentage that EPA has recommended.

   It reads further:

   (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 .

   That is the percent everybody within the maximum and minimum will receive.

   (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.

   I note that even though the EPA lists Arizona as No. 16 on the list of the States in terms of need--we rank 16th from the top--we are 53rd in how much money is received after a couple of the territories and the District of Columbia. That is why I am standing before you today.

   There are many other States--I think 28--in addition to Arizona that are in the same box. Some are in a little worse shape than Arizona--actually, I do not think any are in worse shape than my State of Arizona, but there are several that receive more because EPA has said they need more than the State of Arizona. States such as New Jersey and Illinois, for example, receive substantially more money under this amendment.

   This is not about anything complicated. It does not take a lot of work to figure out how it works. It is simply a readjustment based on EPA's own figures.

   Included in the appropriations bill on VA-HUD and independent agencies is an increase in funding of $500 million over that requested by the President in the EPA's clean water State revolving fund. It is my understanding that the increase brings current year funding up to a historic level of $1.35 billion.

   I applaud both Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond, who are the chairman and ranking member respectively of the committee, for the work they put in on it. Having been a member of the Appropriations Committee, I know how difficult it is and how hard they work on this. I appreciate the work they have put in on it.

   I wish to make it clear that I support the funding for this program established under the Clean Water Act of 1987. Our States do depend on this revolving fund to provide much needed financial assistance. It comes in the form of low interest rate loans to sewer utility ratepayers who otherwise bear the brunt of the costs associated with compliance of EPA clean water regulations. This is one of the ways in which we impose a mandate on communities but then help them to fulfill that mandate financially.

   It is particularly beneficial for customers of the small rural water companies that serve so much of the population in the Western and Midwestern States. Unfortunately, the EPA has been administering this program since its inception with a very seriously flawed allocation formula that I described earlier. It was based on a formula that was derived for Federal construction loans using data that was gathered in the early 1970s.

   During these 30 years, I think we are all aware of the fact that the demographic distribution in the country has changed dramatically, as have the other factors that would cause the EPA to rank localities based upon their need for this kind of funding.

   In my State of Arizona, our population has nearly tripled from 1.8 million to 5.1 million since 1970. Just think about the changes that has required in terms of infrastructure in the State . I might add, that does not include a very large population that is probably not counted.

   Much of that shift in population has come from other regions of the country, so you not only have burgeoning needs in the growth States--and I know the State of the Presiding Officer is in the same position--but you also have declining need in some of the other States that historically have a higher population and receive more money to take care of that population.

   It should be obvious that over time these formulas should be adjusted, but as I say, it has never been adjusted, and I have no reason to believe that circumstances today create any greater opportunity for us to do that than last year or the year before or the year before that.

   The formula that currently exists reflects neither this current population distribution nor the EPA's documented need of individual States as established in its quadrennial wastewater infrastructure needs survey. The EPA will update its wastewater needs survey in the year 2002, but based on the most recently completed survey from 1998, there is a vast discrepancy in the percentage of need fulfilled from State to State .

   I have no doubt that after this next survey, this chart is going to be even more skewed. States that are primarily the growth States are going to be in an even more difficult situation--States such as California, for example, and my own State of Arizona.

   Let me illustrate this disparity using, however, the 1998 EPA wastewater infrastructure need survey and the actual clean water revolving fund allocations to the States in fiscal year 2000. The State of Arizona received funding in fiscal year 2000 to address only .41 percent; that is four-tenths of 1 percent of the validated infrastructure needs. By contrast, four States with populations very similar to Arizona--Wisconsin, Maryland, Minnesota, and Louisiana--each received funding that met from 4 times to 7 times the percentage received by my State : 1.43 percent in the case of Louisiana and 2.89 percent in the case of Minnesota. So there is a 7-to-1 ratio of States with almost equal population.

   That is not fair. I understand why the Representatives of those States want to defend what they have, but they cannot defend its fairness, so they are relegated to an argument that procedurally we should not do it on this bill but on another bill. But we never get around to doing it on another bill. It is a catch-22 for us.

   My constituents back home ask, Why is Congress so partisan and why can't it ever just act in a fair way to get things done. I have a hard time explaining it in this case because it is a totally bipartisan issue. There are winner States and States that have to give back some of the money they are in effect receiving today, in the future. And it doesn't respect party lines. People from both parties are winners and losers under this current formula and would be under the new formula. I don't think anybody can defend a formula that, based upon EPA's own recommendations, gives one State seven times more than another State of the very same population. It is very hard to defend.

   If my colleagues would refer to the floor chart again, we see by graph what I illustrated in terms of actual numbers. It only includes those States not covered by the minimum or maximum shares under the proposed formula, so it avoids a skewed representation.

   I make another point about this amendment because there is another fund out of which the committee is able to allocate money, and it is based on so-called earmarks. My change here, this amendment, this formula change, does not in any way affect those earmarks. I make that crystal clear to everybody. Their earmarks are not affected today or tomorrow. They are totally outside the scope of this amendment.

   Let me illustrate how the earmarks also work. There is only one State that has double-digit millions of dollars in earmarks. That is the State of Missouri, which receives $10.250 million in earmark funds , in addition to the formula funds . My State , by the way, gets $1 million. So there is a 10-to-1 ratio.

   For those who say we even it out in the earmarks, no, it is not evened out

[Page: S8637]  GPO's PDF

   We have and will hear the argument we should not be legislating on an appropriations bill. After having complimented the chairman and ranking member, I note they represent two of these four States. They are able, in the committee, to ensure that their State is treated as they would consider to be very fairly. However, they argue that those not on the committee shouldn't be able to do anything on the floor of the Senate; that would be legislating on an appropriations

   bill; we cannot do that. Again, it is a catch-22. You have to be on the Appropriations Committee; otherwise, if you are not on the Appropriations Committee, don't offer an amendment on the floor or they will come to the floor and say they will stick together and urge their colleagues to vote against this amendment because it would be legislating on an appropriations bill. Again, a catch-22 situation.

<<<

>>>

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