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    

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.

   But the fact is, it is very difficult to ever change formulas once they are in place because of the opposition of the Senators who perceive that they would be losing under the formula. Let me turn to a chart that I think will also make the point.

   Under the Kyl-Fitzgerald-McCain legislation, some States will lose some of the windfalls that they have been receiving. But every State except three, as I have pointed out, still does very well. If you look in the far corner, there is a State that is pretty much above every other State . The line for New York State is way up here. It is true that under our amendment it would be brought down to here. But every other State else in the formula is down here.

   While it is true that there are States that will lose--and New York State , I confess to my colleagues from New York, will lose funding under this act. They have been getting a windfall for a number of years. That must be a testament to their great work before the committee. And I suspect a former Senator from New York also had a little something to do with that.

   My point is, yes, there are a few States that will lose funding because they have been getting too much, and almost all of the other States that are within this minimum-maximum range are way down here. I don't think one can say it is unfair.

   With respect to the comment that my colleague from Missouri made, that is a complicated formula. I want to make it very clear exactly what we are talking about because it is the epitome of simplicity.

   Three factors. In accordance with the wastewater infrastructure needs survey, what does EPA recommend?

   You get 97.5 percent of the funds that are available. There is

   a minimum and a maximum. The minimum is 1.675, and the maximum is 8.0.

   It couldn't be simpler. We have available a chart that shows exactly the dollars and percentages--which States receive more, which States receive less, and how the earmarks relate to that. We don't affect the earmarks in any way. The earmarks are untouched. The 2002 earmarks are indicated on this particular chart.

   I don't think the formula is at all complicated. I don't think it takes a lot of work to figure out how you fared under the amendment.

   I also note that while the Senator from Missouri was concerned about States that receive the minimum amount, actually we shouldn't be concerned about the States receiving the minimum because, according to the survey, they actually would receive less money than that but we guarantee that all States receive a minimum amount. They actually end up receiving more percentage-wise than they should based upon the recommendations.

   I think it is a very fair formula. It is very similar to other formulas that we have. We already have a similar kind of formula with respect to drinking water under the same act. The EPA makes a recommendation. We have a formula that allocates funding based upon those recommendations.

   I think, A, it is fair; B, the minimum States are protected; and, C, you can see that only a few States that have been receiving what I would refer to as windfalls are going to be rather substantially reduced. Everyone else is reduced only a small amount. There are a few States that actually increase a fair amount. That is, frankly, because of the fact that they have been significantly shortchanged in the past.

   For the benefit of my colleagues, I would like to relate a few of the statistics.

   The distinguished Presiding Officer represents the State of Delaware, which is currently receiving $6.7 million but would receive $9.1 million under the formula.

   Let me start at the top. We all know California is a fast-growing State . It is slated to receive $97 million under the current allocation. It would receive $108 million under the Kyl-Fitzgerald-McCain amendment.

   I think the State of Illinois has been significantly shortchanged probably more than any other State . It received $61 million. According to the allocation, it should receive $108 million. It would gain $48 million.

   I think for the citizens of Illinois, it is just unconscionable that it has fallen that far behind.

   The State of Ohio similarly has been receiving less.

   The State of New Jersey, which is receiving $55 million, would receive almost $75 million--about a $21 million increase.

   This just illustrates the point. I could go on down the list.

   Next is Pennsylvania, which is receiving $54 million but would receive $61 million.

   The State of Florida receives $46 million; it would receive $55 million. The State of Indiana receives $32 million; it would receive $50 million.

   You can see how there are States that are really significantly below. Just in the spirit of full disclosure, going down to my own State of Arizona, it receives $9 million; it should be receiving $22 million.

   My point is, there are a lot of States that are way behind what EPA thinks they should be receiving. There are a few States that are way ahead of what they should be receiving. But as I said, only three States will actually receive less as a result of our amendment. Let's see if I actually have those States listed.

   All but three States will receive, at a minimum, their exact proportionate share of total need. And two of them subjected to the cap in the formula will still receive substantially more than they do under the current system

   Mr. President, there are other Members who would like to speak to this amendment. I promised them they would have the opportunity. At least two of them are tied up in the Commerce Committee, which I assume is going to be done with its business pretty soon. So I would like to have an opportunity for them to speak. But I also note the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee is in this Chamber.

   Mr. President, I yield the floor.

   Several Senators addressed the Chair.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

   Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to table the pending amendment.

   Ms. MIKULSKI. Would the Senator withhold? I want to speak. I also understand there are two other Members who wish to speak. Will the Senator withhold because I understand the other Senator from Arizona wishes to speak?

   Mr. KYL. That is correct.

   Ms. MIKULSKI. If the Senator makes his motion to table, does that terminate the debate? I ask the Senator, in the spirit of----

   Mr. JEFFORDS. I withdraw my motion to table at this time.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is withdrawn.

   Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank both Senators because last night

[Page: S8640]  GPO's PDF

   Also, he made it very clear last night that the other Senator from Arizona wished to speak. We want to be able to accommodate him because I think we have been moving along in a spirit of comity. I would just ask the proponent of the amendment if we could encourage those speakers to come to the Chamber. My remarks will not be of a prolonged nature. If the two Commerce Committee Senators could come over, I believe we could have this amendment wrapped up before lunch and, I think, would be moving in a well-paced way.

   Again, we want to keep the kind of atmosphere of civility that has set the tone of the bill. If everyone would notice, there has not even been a quorum call. So I am ready to make my remarks. We would then go to those two other colleagues to speak.

   I ask the Senator, are they coming?

   Mr. President, we are going to have a little quorum call, just for clarification.

   I suggest the absence of a quorum.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

   The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

   Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

   Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, again, I thank the Senator from Arizona for proposing his amendment and moving with a promptness that is appreciated by both Senator Bond and I. I acknowledge the validity of many of the concerns that the Senator from Arizona raises.

<<<

>>>

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