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

DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002 -- (Senate - August 02, 2001)

It strikes me, regarding the matter of fairness, that a minority of States in this proposal get way more than the percentage EPA recommends under the current formula and a majority receive much less--mostly in States that are growing faster. Regardless, everyone recognizes--and I haven't heard anybody listening to the debate on the floor or in between saying that the current formula is right--now is the time

[Page: S8642]  GPO's PDF

to make sure the wastewater allocations, the taxpayer dollars, are being utilized in a way that addresses the needs of the various States.

The formula change also does not affect the so-called earmarks. That is separate and in a smaller pot of money. I ask the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, if he will please take the floor and let me ask him a few questions so we can clear up any misunderstandings that have been proffered here by others who may not seem to understand this proposal.

I ask the Senator from Arizona this: The current plan, the current allocation for wastewater moneys, is it a formula based on population from the 1970 census?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Virginia, my staff has tried to find out the basis for the current formula, and they have had a very difficult time getting anybody to tell them what it is. We have gone back in the debates, in the records, and so on. As best we can tell, it is a formula that is based upon a construction grant program using 1970s data, including population data. That is as clear as I can be about it. I urge anybody--of course, I find it

interesting that those who are opposing the amendment do so on procedural grounds, not defending the existing formula. I haven't found anybody to defend, let alone explain, what the basis of the existing formula is.

Mr. ALLEN. If the Senator will yield for a further question, I ask the Senator from Arizona this: The formula he is proposing here, though, is based, as he states, on needs, actual needs. How do you determine those needs? What is the formula? What is the criterion by which needs are addressed?

Mr. KYL. I appreciate that question from the Senator because there has been, I think, a misunderstanding here. My understanding is that EPA has at least two different ``needs surveys,'' as they call them. They survey needs of communities for drinking water , and we use that survey with a formula for the allocation of drinking water moneys in a different place in this bill. They also do a survey for wastewater needs.

It is my proposal that we use that survey as the basis for the allocation of wastewater funds . Those are different surveys. We should not confuse the two. We are not suggesting that we use the drinking water survey for wastewater allocations. Leave the drinking water survey for the drinking water allocations and use the wastewater survey for the wastewater allocations.

It is further my understanding that each of these is redone every 4 years on a rotating basis.

In 2002, there will be the new 4-year wastewater treatment survey. Two years ago, we had the most recent drinking water survey. So every 2 years, we have a new survey. One is for drinking water ; one is for wastewater. My concern is we will wait until the 2002 wastewater survey, and then it will be at least fiscal year 2003, or later, when it can be implemented, even if we are all in agreement to use that survey. Clearly, we will be yet another year or even 2 years down the road without having made the formula safe.

To summarize, the Senator from Virginia is correct. There are two different needs surveys, one for drinking water and one for wastewater. We are not using the drinking water survey; we are using the wastewater survey. The formulas also differ slightly.

I believe there is a 1-percent minimum on drinking water for that fund. In ours, it is a .675-percent minimum, 8-percent maximum, and everybody else within that range receives 97.5 of what is available. It is a very simple formula and not dissimilar to the drinking water formula, but it is not the same formula.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator if he will yield for a further question.

There was an assertion that this will affect some of the bonding and expected amounts of money. The Senator is saying after the 2002 analysis, or the survey for wastewater monies, which is calculated on an antiquated, outdated, inaccurate formula, there would be a change. Even if nothing happened, even if the Senate does not act in a farsighted, appropriate way and vote for the amendment, there still would be changes in allocations to the different States anyway. Isn't that correct?

Mr. KYL. The Senator from Virginia is correct. That is based on two primary factors:

First, as both the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Missouri have noted, they have fought very hard for increased funding. One never knows. Each year, from one year to the next, we never know what amount of money is going to be available; that is very true. It would be folly for someone to count on a particular amount of money.

Second, as I said, we do not touch the earmarks. The earmarks come from a separate pot, basically, if we want to simplify it. That comes from a separate pot of money, and the committee can certainly do a lot of adjusting within their earmark authority from year to year. We cannot predict, obviously, from year to year what that would be.

So, yes, the Senator is correct. There are at least two bases, and maybe others, for not knowing exactly how much money one is going to get from one year to the next, even under the existing formula.

Mr. ALLEN. As far as that is concerned in bonding and hypothecating expected revenues from the Federal Government, it is a risky business for State governments or local or regional municipal waterworks anyway.

As I understand it, the Senator is trying to make sure we are allocating scarce taxpayer resources; we are making a priority. Obviously, on drinking water --and that is not affected by this--in the wisdom of the Senate, the House, and the Federal Government, they said--before the Presiding Officer and I were in the Senate, but it made sense--let us make sure the money is getting to those who need it the most.

The same logic is applied in the measure of the Senator from Arizona, as far as wastewater is concerned, which is very important for recreation, for water treatment and, obviously, for our enjoyment and health.

It seems to me the Senator from Arizona is moving forward, making sure, when the survey is done next year, it will utilize a needs assessment, not outdated population figures that are 20 or 30 years old, and making sure we are getting the funds to the areas that need it the most.

Most tributaries do not just flow out of one State ; they start in one State and sometimes travel through several others. For example, as I mentioned, Delaware: Folks from Delaware say everything flows into the Atlantic Ocean or towards the oceanside. Some of the rivers or streams will flow through Maryland into the Chesapeake Bay. Therefore, if there is some waste coming from a stream that--and I am sure there would not be too much, but there can be from time to time, as we all know, on the Delmarva peninsula. But the point is, if one is cleaning it up on the riparian areas of the river in Delaware, that helps Maryland and that helps Virginia as well.

Sometimes we look at it on a State -by-State basis. The Colorado River flows, obviously, out of Colorado through Utah, through Arizona, through a part of or at least the border of Nevada and California. The Potomac River actually starts some of the tributaries in Virginia, goes through West Virginia, obviously through Maryland, and obviously on the banks of Virginia. The same with the Missouri, the Mississippi, the Ohio, the Kanawa, the Cheat--all sorts of rivers go through many States.

I ask the Senator from Arizona one final question: What would he say is the most salient point in how his proposal would more accurately reflect the actual wastewater treatment needs of this country than the old formula that is admitted by

all to be outdated and wrong? How would his proposal, in the most salient way, make it a more accurate determination and allocation of scarce funds to the actual needs of wastewater cleanup?

Mr. KYL. I will answer the question of the Senator from Virginia by simply saying it is based upon EPA recommendations. We know growth States, population changes, account for a big part of the increased needs.

The Senator is also correct that there are some other localized factors, including waterways, the existence of waterways and other factors that bear on this. That is why I note that States that have been significantly underfunded include a big growth State such as California and the State of Illinois.

[Page: S8643]  GPO's PDF

I just do not understand why Illinois has been so drastically underfunded. Ohio, maybe that is because both Ohio and Illinois have substantial waterways, as the Senator from Virginia does.

New Jersey is another State that has been woefully underfunded. Yet it is not as big a growth State as California or my own State of Arizona.

Indiana is another State that is underfunded. It could be that series of rivers in the Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois area. I cannot explain why the EPA recommends exactly what it recommends and, in comparison to the existing formula, why some States are so much out of skew. One general reason is that of population growth. There are others, as the Senator has pointed out.

The main reason this formula makes sense is EPA looks at all of this, applies a needs-based test, makes the recommendations, and those are the recommendations that we plug into the formula.

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Senator from Arizona, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Senator from Arizona. I think it is the Kyl-Fitzgerald-McCain amendment.

It is a matter of fairness. It is addressing actual needs, and there is a reason population would be more of a concern, because as population increases, obviously there may be a corresponding increase in wastewater treatment needs.

I conclude by saying I urge my colleagues to use objective standards. Do not use politics but look at objective needs to clean up the wastewater in this country.

I am very grateful to the Senator from Arizona for spending this amount of time and effort to try to correct this inequity. It seems to have been around for several decades, and this is the time to act. Who knows when we will have another chance, the way the Senate moves.

Again, I commend the Senator from Arizona. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. It will be good for the water in their States and the water throughout the United States.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I reiterate before a fellow Bay Senator leaves the Chamber, EPA has informed me why this amendment has a fundamental flaw. The amendment references a wastewater infrastructure needs survey to be conducted under the Safe Drinking Water Act. No such survey exists, according to EPA. The wastewater needs survey is required under the Clean Water Act, not the Safe Drinking Water Act. I wanted to make that point.

I have a question for the Senator from Arizona. I know he has put a lot of work into trying to develop this formula, but I really wanted to bring to his attention what EPA has apprised me of, and I think we need to check that. I know the Senator likes to always operate off the basis of fact.

The EPA says the agency would be at a loss as to how to calculate a formula given this direction. So there is no needs survey on which to calculate it. We are getting ``section this of that act'' and ``section that of that act,'' et cetera, which is why we need this in an authorizing bill and not on an appropriations bill. I do not dispute the Senator believes this--I want to share this information with him.

I suggest the absence of a quorum to share this information with the Senator.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CORZINE). The clerk will call the roll.

The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.