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 federal government has invested $380 billion in our highways and $160 billion in airports since Amtrak was created. By contrast, the federal government has spent only about $30 billion on Amtrak. We have spent just four percent of our transportation budget on rail transportation in the last 30 years. The Congress has mandated that Amtrak soon achieve operational self-sufficiency. That does not, nor should it, preclude further capital improvement grants. This is often misunderstood and misinterpreted. Amtrak has reduced its operating losses over the last two years, and remains capable of meeting its goal. However, it will continue to need the federal government to support its track upgrades, rolling stock improvements and other large-scale upgrades so that it may
[Page: S1072] GPO's PDF
There is a compelling need to invest in high-speed rail. Our highways and skyways are overburdened. Intercity passenger miles traveled have increased 80 percent since 1988, but only 5.5 percent of that has come from increased rail travel. Meanwhile, our congested skies have become even more crowded. The result, predictably, is that air travel delays are up 58 percent since 1995. Things have gotten so bad in Chicago that O'Hare airport maintains 1,500 cots for snow-bound travelers. This summer, the airport had to order additional cots to accommodate passengers left stranded by myriad delays and cancellations.
Amtrak ridership is on the rise. More than 22.5 million passengers rode Amtrak in Fiscal Year 2000, a million more than the previous year. Nearly six million riders took Amtrak in the first quarter of this fiscal year, the best first quarter in the company's 30-year history. Ridership for the quarter was up 8.5 percent, while ticket revenue climbed almost 14 percent over the first quarter of FY00. We should welcome that increased use and support it by giving Amtrak the resources it needs to provide high-quality, dependable service.
The High-Speed Rail Investment Act is critical to the future of Amtrak. For about the cost of the new Denver International Airport, we can improve intercity transportation in 29 states. For less than double the cost of constructing the new Woodrow Wilson bridge improving transportation in two states, we can create eight high-speed rail corridors in 29 states.
High-speed rail is a viable transportation alternative. There is a large and growing demand for rail service in the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak captures almost 70 percent of the business rail and air travel market between Washington and New York and 30 percent of the market share between New York and Boston. True high-speed rail will undoubtedly increase that market share. These new trains, like the Acela Express that debuted in the Northeast this year, currently run at an average of only 82 miles per hour, but with track improvements, will run at 130 miles per hour.
As a nation, we have recognized the importance of having the very best communication system, and ours is the envy of the world. That investment is one of reasons our economy is the strongest in the world. And we should do the same for our transportation system. It should be equally modern and must be fully intermodal. Rail transportation is a part of that network and I hope that we can pass this critical, cost-efficient legislation this year.
By Mr. VOINOVICH:
S. 252. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize appropriations for State water pollution control revolving funds , and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clean Water Infrastructure Financing Act of 2001, legislation which will reauthorize the highly successful, but undercapitalized, Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund, SRF Program administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA.
As many of my colleagues know, the Clean Water SRF Program is an effective and immensely popular source of funding for wastewater collection and treatment projects. Congress created the Clean Water SRF Program in 1987 to replace the direct grants program that was enacted as part of the landmark 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or, as it is known, the Clean Water Act. State and local governments have used the Federal Clean Water SRF to help meet critical environmental infrastructure financing needs. The program operates much like a community bank, where each state determines which projects get built.
The performance of the Clean Water SRF Program has been spectacular. Total federal capitalization grants have been nearly doubled by non-federal funding sources, including state contributions, leveraged bonds, and principal and interest payments. Communities of all sizes are participating in the program, and approximately 7,000 projects nationwide have been approved to date.
As in many states, Ohio has needs for public wastewater system improvements which greatly exceed typical Clean Water SRF funding levels. For instance, in fiscal year 2001, a level of $1.35 billion was appropriated for the Clean Water SRF. However, in Ohio alone, about $4 billion of improvements have been identified as necessary to address combined serve overflow, CSO, problems, according to the latest state figures. The City of Akron, for example, has proposed a Long Term Control Plan that will cost more than $248 million to implement--nearly 20 percent of the total SRF level appropriated in fiscal year 2001. Because of Akron's CSO problem, city sewer rates will more than double without outside funding.
Further, estimates indicate that among Ohio towns with a population of less than 10,000, there exists $1.2 billion in CSO needs. In recent years, Ohio cities and villages have been spending more on maintaining and operating their systems in order to stave-off the inevitable upgrades. Nevertheless, their systems are aging and will need to be replaced.
While the Clean Water SRF Program's track record is excellent, the condition of our nation's overall environmental infrastructure remains alarming. A 20-year needs survey conducted by the EPA in 1996 documented $139 billion worth of wastewater capital needs nationwide. In 1999, the national assessment was revised upward to nearly $200 billion, in order to more accurately account for expected sanitary sewer needs. This amount may be too small; private studies demonstrate that total needs are closer to $300 billion when anticipated replacement costs are considered.
Authoziation for the Clean Water SRF expired at the end of fiscal year 1994, and the continued failure of Congress to reauthorize the program sends an implicit message that wastewater collection and treatment is not a national priority. The longer we have an absence of authorization of this program, the longer it creates uncertainty about the program's future in the eyes of borrowers, which may delay or, in some cases, prevent project financing. In order to allow any kind of substantial increase in spending, reauthorization of the Clean Water SRF program is necessary in the 107th Congress.
The bill that I am introducing today will authorize a total of $15 billion over the next five years for the Clean Water SRF. Not only would this authorization bridge the enormous infrastructure funding gap, the investment would also pay for itself in perpetuity by protecting our environment, enhancing public health, creating jobs and increasing numerous tax bases across the country. Additionally, the bill will provide technical and planning assistance for small systems, expand the types of projects eligible for loan assistance, and offer financially-distressed communities extended loan repayment periods and principal subsidies. The bill also will allow states to give priority consideration to financially-distressed communities when making loans.
The health and well-being of the American public depends on the condition of our nation's wastewater collection and treatment systems. Unfortunately, the facilities that comprise these systems are often taken for granted absent a crisis. Let me assure my colleagues that the costs of poor environmental infrastructure cannot be ignored and the price will pay for continued neglect will far exceed the authorization level of this bill. Now is the time to address our infrastructure needs while the costs are manageable.
In just over a decade, the Clean Water SRF Program has helped thousands of communities meet their wastewater treatment needs. My bill will help ensure that the Clean Water SRF Program remains a viable components in the overall development of our nations' infrastructure for years to come. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation, and I urge its speedy consideration by the Senate.
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. GREGG, Mr. BURNS, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. ENZI, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. THOMAS, and Mr. JOHNSON):
S. 253. A bill to reauthorize the Rural Education Initiative in subspart 2 of part J of title X of the Elementary and
[Page: S1073] GPO's PDF
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Education Improvement Act. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators CONRAD, GREGG, HUTCHINSON, ENZI, HAGEL, ROBERTS, DORGAN, THOMAS, ALLARD, BURNS, and JOHNSON, as original cosponsors of this common sense, bipartisan proposal to help rural schools make better use of federal education funds . I also want to acknowledge the valuable assistance provided over the past two years by the American Association of School Administrators.
Last Congress, I introduced the Rural Education Initiative Act--the foundation for today's legislation. I am pleased that the REIA was largely incorporated into the final appropriations bill, thus allowing small, rural school districts to combine funds from four formula grant programs, giving them the flexibility to target funds toward their students' most pressing needs. While the passage of this bill represented substantial progress, it was a one-year authorization only, and no appropriations were provided for the supplemental grant program authorized by the new law.
Mr. President, the bill we introduce today strengthens the legislation enacted last year. The Collins-Conrad bill would provide a 5-year authorization of the rural education provisions enacted last year and authorize $150 million annually for the supplemental grant program.
Our legislation would benefit school districts with fewer than 600 students in rural communities. More than 35 percent of all school districts in the United States have 600 or fewer students. In Maine, the percentage is even higher: 56 percent of our 284 school districts have fewer than 600 students. Our legislation would help them overcome some of the most challenging obstacles they face in participating in federal education programs.
By way of background, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act authorizes formula and competitive grants that help many of our local school districts to improve the education of their students. These federal grants support such laudable goals as the professional development of teachers, the incorporation of technology into the classroom, gifted and talented programs, and class size reduction. Schools receive categorical grants, each with its own authorized activities and regulations, each with its own red tape and paperwork. Unfortunately, as valuable as these programs may be for many large urban and suburban school districts, they often do not work well in rural areas for two major reasons.
First, formula grants often do not reach small, rural schools in amounts sufficient to achieve the goals of the programs. These grants are based on school district enrollment, and, therefore, smaller districts often do not receive enough funding from any single grant to carry out a meaningful activity. One Main district, for example, received a whopping $28 to fund a district-wide Safe and Drug-free School program. This amount is certainly not sufficient to achieve the goal of that federal program, yet the school district could not use the funds for any other program.
To give school districts more flexibility to meet local needs, our legislation would allow rural districts to combine the funds from four categorical programs and use them to address the school district's highest priorities.
The second problem facing many rural school districts is that they are essentially shut out of the competitive programs because they lack the grant-writers and administrators necessary to apply for, win, and manage competitively awarded grants. The Rural Education Improvement Act would remedy this program by providing small, rural districts with a formula grant in lieu of eligibility for the competitive programs of the ESEA.
A district would be able to combine this new supplemental grant with the funds from the formula grants and use the combined monies for any purposes that would improve student achievement or teaching quality. Districts might use these funds to hire a new reading or math teacher, fund professional development, offer a program for gifted and talented students, or purchase computers or library books.
Let me give you a specific example of what these two initiatives would mean for one school Maine School District in Northern Maine with 400 students from the towns of Frenchville and St. Agatha receives four separate formula grants ranging from $1,904 for Safe and Drug Free Schools to $9,542 under the Class Size Reduction Act. You can see the problem right there. The amounts of the grants are so small that they really are not useful in accomplishing the goals of the program. The total for all four programs is just under $16,000. Yet, each must be applied for separately, used for different--federally mandated--purposes, and accounted for independently.
Superintendent Jerry White told me that he needs to submit eight separate reports, for four programs, to receive this $16,000. Under our bill, this school district would be freed from the multiple applications and reports and would have $16,000 to use for its educational priorities.
Moreover, since this district does not have the resources to apply for the competitive grant programs, our legislation would result in a supplemental grant of $34,000 as long as the District foregoes its eligibility for the competitively awarded grants. Under the Rural Education Improvement Act, therefore, the District will have $50,000 and the flexibility to use these funds for its most pressing needs.
But with this flexibility and additional funding come responsibility and accountability. In return for the advantages our bill provides, participating districts would be held accountable for demonstrating improved student performance over a 3-year period. Schools will be held responsible for what is really important--improved student achievement--rather than for time-consuming paperwork. As Superintendent White told me, ``Give me the resources I need plus the flexibility to use them, and I am happy to be held accountable for improved student performance. It will happen.''
Mr. President, we must improve our educational system without requiring every school to adopt a plan designed in Washington and without imposing overly burdensome and costly regulations in return for federal assistance. Our bill would allow small, rural districts to use their own strategies for improvement without the encumbrance of onerous federal regulations and unnecessary paperwork.
Congress took an important step last year by recognizing that small, rural districts face challenges in using federal programs to help provide a quality education for their students. Due to our efforts last year, the law now reflects Congress's intention to provide these districts more flexibility and additional funding. This legislation will move us from intention to implementation by providing sustained support, flexibility, and funding for our rural schools.
I am pleased that this legislation has been endorsed by the American Association of School Administrators, National Rural Education Association, the Association of Educational Service Agencies, and the National Education Association, and I ask unanimous consent that endorsement letters be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
NATIONAL RURAL
EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
Arlington, VA, February 5, 2001.
Senator SUSAN
COLLINS,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
DEAR SENATOR COLLINS: The National Rural Education Association would like to applaud your recognition of the unique hardships that face small, rural schools in respect to their federal funding. Along with U.S. Senators Kent Conrad, D-ND; Judd Gregg, R-NH; Conrad Burns, R-MT; Chuck Hagel, R-NE; Michael Enzi, R-WY; Pat Roberts, R-KS; and Tim Johnson, D-SD; and Byron Dorgan, D-ND, you have reintroduced legislation that would ensure that small rural schools get a baseline amount of federal funding.
Currently, many small and rural schools are at a disadvantage when they receive their ESEA funding. Federal funding formulas are based on enrollment, which prevent small schools from receiving adequate resources. Due to the small numbers of students, these schools rarely receive enough combined funds to hire a teacher. Small schools also lack the administrative capacity to apply for competitive grants. This puts small rural schools on unequal federal footing with many of their urban and suburban counterparts.
[Page: S1074] GPO's PDF
Last December, your Rural Education Initiative was included in the omnibus appropriations bill. The new law allows districts to commingle some of the federal funds they receive and use them in areas to improve student achievement and professional development. In addition, it included legislation that would provide a minimum of $20,000 to schools of 600 or less. These are the same schools are typically receiving approximately $5,000 from the federal government.
By setting a baseline amount and allowing schools to commingle the funds , the local school district will have the opportunity to hire a specialist, provide signing bonuses to teachers, extend after school opportunities and enhance many other aspects of the small school budget. Most of all, it would enable the school to provide an education consistent with local needs.
Once again, we would like to extend our grateful thanks for your leadership on this issue. We urge the full Senate to reauthorize and fully fund this legislation on behalf of those schools who are too small to be heard.
Sincerely,
MARY CONK,
Legislative Analyst.
--
| <<< | >>> |
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