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    

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.

   When you have a State such as Arizona, that certainly is growing in population, and you find out you are down on a list of Federal funds , it is, indeed, troubling.

   I also acknowledge the fact that the Nation is facing a clean water funding crisis. It is estimated that we have an annual funding shortfall for clean water infrastructure of at least $12 billion. I can honestly tell the Senator that if I gave $1 billion to every State in the Union over and above what is in our bill, it would be well used because it is needed.

   We have heard about water problems from failing septic tanks in the Delmarva region that you and I represent, where the rural poor really do not have the bucks to do it. We have heard about the big failing water systems in the Chicagos and the Baltimores, where they were built over 100 years ago, and it is beyond the scope of this Appropriations Committee to deal with it.

   We need full-scale authorizing hearings on the needs for America's water infrastructure --both the needs and the formula. So I acknowledge that this is a big deal and a big problem.

   There is not a community in this country--urban or rural--that does not have some important funding need related to water , whether it is from Baltimore to St. Louis to Stafford or Scottsdale, AZ. However, I must say, Senator Kyl's amendment is outside of the scope of the VA-HUD bill. I truly believe, because it is a formula change, that it will trigger essentially a water war on the VA-HUD bill.

   This is, indeed, an authorizing issue and should be addressed by the authorizers in comprehensive water infrastructure legislation.

   Last night we had an excellent discussion on the issue of arsenic. We all agreed that arsenic is a problem. We all agreed that complying with the Federal mandate on arsenic will also be a problem. So our colleague, the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. DOMENICI, offered an amendment for authorizing on funding. We thought that was an excellent way to go and, wow, suddenly you had a Domenici-Mikulski-Schumer-Clinton-Bond--an amazing list of cosponsors. The message of that was not only that arsenic is a problem, but, like last night when we talked about it, how do we pay for these water issues?

   What we have done--again, working on a bipartisan basis--the VA-HUD bill does not break new ground on environmental issues. We essentially broke no new ground, whether it was on enforcement, whether it was reallocating from sewers to State revolving funds , and so on.

   We essentially kept the framework from last year to get the President to put his arms around it, to get our new EPA Administrator to put her arms around it, to then look at what EPA should be and what are some of the new changes we need to make.

   We think we have gotten off to a good start. Because this is a year of transition, both within the executive branch and also within this subcommittee, that was the framework we approached, so that we could be prudent, that we would not lurch ahead in either the executive or legislative branch and make mistakes that we would have to then go back and evaluate.

   As my colleagues know, often on environmental issues, we end up with either unfunded mandates or, in some instances, unintended consequences to what seems to be a good idea.

   The new chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works believes that water should be at the top of his agenda. He is here today to speak on that. EPA is currently working on a needs survey for clean water funding. This should be done early in the next calendar year.

   I cannot support the Kyl amendment until the authorizers have had an opportunity to examine the needs survey and we have the very important census data related to growth that the Senator from Arizona has talked about. We all acknowledge that Arizona has grown, but we want to have more data on that. Then we need to have recommendations on how to clearly allocate our clean water .

   There is also another issue with the actual formula that the Senator is proposing. It is going to be a little geeky here so stick with me.

   This amendment would require EPA to allocate the fiscal year 2002 clean water State revolving fund appropriation to the States using an allocation formula for the drinking water State revolving loan fund.

   Remember, we have two revolving loan funds : one for clean water and the other for drinking water . You might say: Why is that such a big deal? Dirty water is dirty water , and why not commingle the formulas?

   This is really inconsistent with the Nation's wastewater and clean water needs. Drinking water systems and wastewater systems are fundamentally different. They deal with two different problems. They focus on different pollutants. Wastewater systems concentrate on removing pollution that deteriorates our rivers, lakes, and our bays--the Chair is familiar with it--the nitrogens, the phosphorous. That is why we have those problems on the Chesapeake Bay.

   The drinking water system removes pollutants and treats water to make sure it is safe to drink. One, we are drinking it; and the other drops it into the big drink like the Chesapeake Bay --two different things and two different kinds of pollution.

   When we get our drinking water , we are not dealing with phosphorous and nitrogen and those issues with which we have had to deal.

   In addition, the wastewater systems need to address shortcomings from the past, such as combined sewer overflows. Anyone from the city knows that this combined sewer overflow and the sanitary overflows are really big issues. There is no parallel to those issues in the drinking water systems. You can see how they are different. Then to use the same formulas, it gets to be a problem.

   Also, this amendment has another fundamental flaw. It references a water infrastructure needs survey to be conducted

   under the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA has advised the committee today that no such survey exists. The wastewater needs survey is required under the Clean Water Act, not the Safe Drinking Water Act.

   We are going to get lost here. We don't want to get lost on the Senator's needs or what we want to accomplish. This shows exactly why this is the wrong place to offer this amendment. It is so complicated. We have needs surveys. We have formulas. We have safe water . We have clean water . We have drinking water . We have dirty water . We have wastewater. We need to be clear that the formulas are based on the problem to be addressed as well as on population.

[Page: S8641]  GPO's PDF

   Section 2 of the Senator's amendment is unclear. The Agency would be at a loss on how to calculate the formula given this direction.

   The needs for surface water quality projects differ geographically from drinking water projects. For example, some communities are served by central drinking water systems, but there is no municipal wastewater system. In another circumstance, a community may have a minor drinking water problem but might have a terrible or significant combined sewer overflow or a sanitary sewer overflow. As a result, surveying the construction needs of drinking water systems has no connection to the wastewater treatment system in the same community.

   The Presiding Officer was a Governor. I am sure he follows that. But most of all, local government follows it.

   Which brings me to another issue: Changes of this magnitude applied here with such scant notice would severely disrupt State programs. States must plan ahead. They have to use an expected range of capitalization grants for planning purposes. You have to know what you are going to get and when you are going to get it. Changes of the size implicit in the amendment would stop the State CWSRF, the clean water State revolving fund, loan programs for a significant period of time. This means that States would have to scurry around, prepare new intended-use plans, hold public hearings, try to get their bond issues straightened out.

   As you know, States have capital budgets. We don't. Capital budgets are based on what is going to come out of general revenue and what able Governors take to the bond market. A lot of our water and sewer is done on bonds, particularly at the local level.

<<<

>>>

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