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    

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 In fact, a majority of the States are adversely affected by the unfair and outdated formula that is in the bill today.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.

   Certainly the funding formula ought to be one component of that review because we have tremendous water needs throughout our country. Whether it is east coast, west coast, the Great Plains, the South, the North, we have water needs. That is why I am glad he brought it up.

   The other part of the emotion is it is the wrong place. I am sorry, but we cannot deal with reviewing a complicated formula as part of an overarching programmatic review that is needed on the entire water issue on this appropriations bill.

   We come to the floor and we have just now received an amendment. The amendment says that its proportional share, if there is a minimum of .675 percent and a maximum of 8 percent but the State proportional share is greater than the minimum, then they shall receive 97.5 percent of the proportionate share.

   If we fell below the minimum, if we really were way down

   and we fell below a minimum somehow, then we would be shut out. What happens to those who fall below the minimum? What happens to those who are above the maximum? How do you calculate the proportionate share?

   These are all issues that ought to be worked out in a committee markup. They are complicated issues. I have questions that I could debate all day long on how to make this formula work. I do not want to do that in this Chamber. I don't think we have time to do that here. I would like to have my staff spend time, working on a bipartisan basis with the staffs of both sides, with the EPA, with the others who are knowledgeable, to figure out how this works, getting input from the States and the localities that receive the funds to see how it works. Then I can turn in anger and disgust to a staff member if they cannot explain it to me.

   Right now we are looking at something that I think has great problems. For that reason, among many others, I say, please, let's take this to the authorizing committee.

   If the author of this amendment had come to me last year or the year before or the year before or the year before, I would have been more than happy to sign on to a bill that says let's update this formula. I would be happy to sign on. And I have supported broader measures that said let's deal with this whole problem and figure out how we are going to meet the $200 billion water infrastructure needs over the next 20 years. This is a vitally important matter for human health.

   We talk about a lot of things that have only that much, that tiny impact on the health of our country. We spend so much time debating things that are about a gnat's eyebrow worth of difference, if we do this or do that.

   What we are talking about now is something that makes a huge difference, that makes a difference between whether communities are healthy, whether the children, the older people, the people who are sick, who are needy, are getting healthy water . Are the people in that community subject to the disease that comes from untreated wastewater? These are vitally important questions that need to be referred to the committee.

   I know the new chairman of the committee has put this issue at the top of his agenda. I know EPA is currently working on a needs survey for clean water funding.

   I understand the survey will be completed in early 2002. I would love to get in the middle of the debate over how we utilize these SRF funds . I would like for the authorizing committee to send a clear signal to OMB, to our Budget Committee, and to the Appropriations Committee that we need more money in State revolving funds , or find another means of funding them, because we are falling far behind.

   I appreciate very much this significant issue being raised. I know if I were in Arizona I would want to have a good water infrastructure myself because you get thirsty out there in the heat. But this, unfortunately, as the Senator so well surmised, is not the place, this is not the time, and this is not the vehicle. I wish him well in some other venue. I will be a strong supporter trying to help him get it done.

   I urge and plead with my colleagues to recognize the importance of the issue he raised but to vote against it.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

   Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to say that the way the opposition to my amendment was delivered by the distinguished Senator just proves yet again why he is such an effective Member of this body and such a great representative of his State and the constituents of the whole country. He has in some sense agreed that we need to do something, but makes an argument, which he indicated last night he would have to make, in opposition to the amendment. I appreciate that fact. But I don't think one could ever ask for an opponent to an amendment who has more graciously expressed his views. I want to let the distinguished Senator from Missouri know that I appreciate that.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

   Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as was pointed out, I am chairman of the committee that has jurisdiction over this matter. I appreciate the Senator from Arizona bringing to the attention of this body the seriousness of the freshwater problems that we have in this country.

   When I became the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, one of my top priorities was to craft legislation to ensure that the Federal Government meet its responsibilities to assist communities in meeting their drinking water and waste water infrastructure needs. Under the leadership of our ranking member, Senator Smith of New Hampshire, the committee has already begun to investigate proper procedures to ensure that every community in this country has good freshwater and is able to dispose of their waste water .

   I think it is important that we discuss this, and it has been brought up. But I would have to object very strenuously to the amendment. It is under the jurisdiction of our committee, and we are dedicated to trying to help make sure that we have better quality water and the quantity of funds available for making sure that we improve our freshwater system.

   I have to object to the amendment on the basis that it is under the jurisdiction of my committee. But I will certainly do all I can to work with the Senator from Arizona as we move forward in the process of developing a better system.

[Page: S8639]  GPO's PDF

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?

   Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me also acknowledge the comments of the Senator from Vermont. They are very welcome. I appreciate the fact that the authorizing jurisdiction lies within the committee that he chairs, and that in the ordinary course of events he is absolutely right; the formula should be modified when the act is reauthorized under his committee. There are reasons why we make exceptions to that.

   Sometimes in the U.S. Congress, the exceptions prove the rule. There are frequent times when we don't do the work in the authorizing committee but rather do it on appropriations bills. In fact, every one of my colleagues--including, I am sure, the distinguished chairman of the committee--will acknowledge that on more than one occasion we have ground our teeth and said it looks as if the authorizing committees are no longer relevant around here; that the appropriators are taking the jurisdiction from us and are making all of the decisions. It is probably a bit of an exaggeration, but I am sure every one of us has felt that at times.

   I certainly appreciate the concerns expressed by the chairman of the committee, who has to protect his committee's jurisdiction. I absolutely understand that. As I said, in the normal course of events, I wouldn't disagree with him at all, as a member now of several authorizing committees, having gotten off of the Appropriations Committee. But we are in a situation today where I think almost everybody will acknowledge that the formula is unfair, and yet we haven't been able to get a reauthorization of this act since its inception in 1987. That is not the fault of the distinguished chairman.

<<<

>>>

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