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 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.

   Last year, I was on the Appropriations Committee, I voluntarily left, so I guess I can't complain, but I didn't think I would be treated unfairly as a result of leaving the committee. This boils down to a matter of unfairness. Every one of my colleagues, I know, has only the best interests of both their constituents and the country at large in their mind. But nobody wants to give up an advantage. If you are inadvertently given $100 in change from a clerk who should have given you $10, do you keep the $100? Most would say no. It is similar here.

   The allocation of funds boils down to fairness and honesty. I defy anybody in this body to tell me there is a more equitable distribution, a more equitable fashion to distribute these funds than on the basis of a proportional share of the total validated need as determined by EPA. I don't ask anything more than a fair share of funding for the people of Arizona, my State , and for all other Americans.

   As I said, mine is not the only State that is adversely affected. In fact, a majority of the States are adversely affected by the unfair and outdated formula that is in the bill today. Using the simple needs-based formula that I proposed, 27 States and the District of Columbia will receive more than they are currently receiving--not their total percentage share but at least more than they are receiving now. Using this formula, all but three States receive, at a minimum, their exact proportion of share of total need.

   This is a very fair way to make an adjustment. Ordinarily, you have to take away from half and give to the other half. This formula works in such a way that very few States could argue they are being shortchanged. In the case of those States, they have simply been receiving far too much in comparison to what EPA has said their needs are. Two of the three States I noted subjected to the cap in the formula will still receive substantially more than they do under the current system.

   It is time to do something to rectify what I think is a gross disparity that impacts the health and welfare of so many of our citizens. I ask my colleagues to recognize the inequity and join me in supporting a reasonable reformulation that takes into account both the aging systems in the East and the growing infrastructure needs in the West that have been driven by this population shift over the last 30 years.

   I close by talking just a little bit about the way the committee has legislated on an appropriations bill because we will hear we cannot do that, and also to talk directly to some of my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee.

   I note the distinguished chairman of the committee is here. I complimented him--I don't know if he was here--on his, I think, publicly expressed but certainly privately expressed desire to take up in his committee later this fall the reauthorization of the underlying legislation which is very sorely needed. I applaud the Senator for that. Obviously, there is no commitment to take up the formula or to change the formula, and it will be too late for the fiscal year 2000 funds which, again, will fall far short of what is needed and will be unfairly distributed.

   Before anyone votes no on this amendment because Members think it is an inappropriate vehicle, think for a moment about what happens to the fiscal year 2002 funds that we are appropriating if the necessary authorization bill is not passed in time to affect the allocations. I suspect my colleague from Vermont will confirm that would be a tall order to get a formula changed, done in time, and signed into law to affect the appropriations for fiscal year 2002.

   Back to the question of legislation on an appropriations bill. Ordinarily, we shouldn't do something dramatically different on an appropriations bill than the appropriators have put in the bill. But it is not true that the amendment is outside of the norm of what we do. Let me focus attention on just a section of the State and tribal assistance grants, which is where we find the funding for the State clean water revolving fund.

   In other words, you do not have to go very far afield. You can stay right in the same section and find out that we have legislated on an appropriations bill.

   On page 76, line 3, I see we are providing funding:

   ..... for Drinking Water State Revolving Funds under section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, except that notwithstanding section 1452(n) of the Safe Water Drinking Act, as amended, none of the funds made available under this heading in this Act, or in previous appropriations Acts, shall be reserved by the Administrator for health effects studies on drinking water contaminants.

   On page 76, line 21, grants specified in the Senate report accompanying this Act are provided:

   ..... except that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the funds herein and hereafter appropriate under this heading for such special needs infrastructure grants, the Administrator may use up to 3 percent of the amount of each project appropriated to administer the management and oversight of construction of such projects through contracts, allocation to the Corps of Engineers, or grants to the States.

   And on page 78 line 4:

   Provided further, That no funds provided by this legislation to address the water , wastewater and other critical infrastructure needs of the colonias in the United States along the United States-Mexico border shall be made available to a county or municipal government unless that government has established an enforceable local ordinance, or other zoning rule, which prevents in that jurisdiction the development or construction of any additional existing colonia areas, or the development within an existing colonia [or] the construction of any new home, business, or other structure which lacks water , wastewater, or other necessary infrastructure .

   So that is pretty heavy duty legislating, I would say. It comes straight out of the appropriations bill before us, in fact the exact same section I am attempting to amend.

   Basically what we are saying is the Appropriations Committee can amend and legislate when the bill is before the committee, but the rest of the Senators are denied that opportunity when the bill comes to the floor.

   As I said, as a general rule it is probably a good thing to let most of the work be done by the committee. But in a case such as this where there is so much disparity, so much unfairness, and where we have not been able to get the authorizers to do this reauthorizing notwithstanding many years of effort, I think we have to take the opportunity that lies before us.

   Mr. Fitzgerald from Illinois, Mr. Brownback from Kansas, and Mr. McCain are all cosponsors of this amendment and they and some other Members would wish to speak on this amendment. But at this point, since I see the distinguished ranking member from Missouri here and the chairman of the authorizing committee, I will yield the floor to them for their comments.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.

   Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is with mixed emotions that I rise to respond to the amendment offered by my good friend from Arizona, mixed emotions because, No. 1, I could not agree more with the emphasis he has put on the need for clean water , safe drinking water , and proper water infrastructure in this country.

   One of the most important things we do on this committee is to get the money that we need to assure healthy water --healthy wastewater systems and healthy drinking water systems

[Page: S8638]  GPO's PDF

   We, the distinguished chair and I, have fought every year to increase the amount of money set out by OMB. We have always said the President is underfunding water , but we all know OMB represents the bad guys. They have always decided to cut the money going to the State revolving funds to fund other priorities. So each year we have taken the inadequate--grossly inadequate--funds for State revolving funds for water infrastructure and increased them. We have increased them because even with the increases we have been able to include, we are falling far short.

   I do not think there is any other environmental program which has the potential to have more impact on the health of this country than assuring clean drinking water , safe drinking water , and cleaning up wastewater. If we do not do those jobs well, we will have failed in the most basic health requirements for our country.

   I have heard, in every area of this country, the cries for more water infrastructure . There is not a community in this country, I do not believe, urban or rural, that does not have tremendous funding needs to upgrade water and sewer systems: Baltimore, MD, St. Louis, MO, Safford, AZ. We all need it. It could be Delaware--the whole State could use some. I know because this is a broad-scale problem. I appreciate the Senator from Arizona raising it to the level of bringing it to the floor because I have been adamant, demanding of our ranking member on EPW and our chairman of EPW that they focus on water problems. I am a humble toiling servant of the EPW committee, and I have said we have to have water issues high on our agenda. It has been too long since we have dealt with the Clean Water Act.

<<<

>>>

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