[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 76 (Thursday, June 16, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES AND THE CLEAN WATER ACT

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, there is substantial concern among 
municipal officials around the country about unfunded Federal mandates.
  Local officials are correct in saying that unfunded mandates in 
Federal laws are a problem. Two major complaints about Federal mandates 
are commonly heard.
  First, local officials object when mandates are inflexible or imposed 
without considering local conditions.
  Second, some Federal mandates have broad public support, but are not 
backed up with adequate Federal financial assistance.
  Local officials have a very good case. Congress must be more aware of 
this issue. We must do a better job of assuring that the laws we pass 
allow for the varying circumstances of communities across the country. 
And we must assure a significant and sustained commitment of Federal 
funding.
  The most commonly heard solution to the problem of unfunded Federal 
mandates is simple; that is, no Federal law may require an action of a 
local government unless the Federal Government provides full payment.
  Well, as the sage of Baltimore, H.L. Mencken once wrote, ``For every 
complex problem there is a solution that is simple, easy, and wrong.''
  That applies here.
  The all-or-nothing solution to the Federal mandates problem is a good 
example of a simple solution that just will not work.
  We can all agree that it is wrong for the Federal Government to 
impose rigid, inflexible mandates on all local governments without 
accounting for local conditions. By the same token, it is also wrong 
for the Federal Government to adopt a blanket prohibition against any 
Federal mandate under any circumstance.
  The best solution to the unfunded mandates problem is to build 
effective partnerships among the local, State, and Federal governments 
tailored to address a specific and generally recognized problem.
  The best way to accomplish this is to review existing Federal laws 
that impose Federal mandates and amend them to assure that concerns 
about unfunded mandates are addressed. This process lacks some of the 
glamour of a sweeping proposal to end all unfunded mandates. But 
addressing Federal mandates on a case-by-case basis is the most 
responsible solution.


                      SAFE DRINKING WATER MANDATES

  I know that there is some skepticism about whether the Congress is up 
to the task of a full and fair evaluation of Federal statutes that 
impose mandates.
  The Federal statute most often cited as imposing unfunded Federal 
mandates is the Safe Drinking Water Act. Municipal officials were right 
to be concerned about the Safe Drinking Water Act. The law imposed 
substantial mandates on communities without providing either financial 
assistance or appropriate flexibility.
  In response to these concerns, the Environment and Public Works 
Committee developed balanced and responsible amendments to the act. 
This legislation, which the Senate passed overwhelming last month, 
provides funding for drinking water projects at a level comparable to 
the need. We fund the mandate. We provide more flexibility for small 
systems to meet treatment requirements. And we give States more 
flexibility in testing for drinking water safety.
  Each of these new provisions was developed considering both the 
impact of the Federal mandate and the interests of public health. This 
balanced approach resulted in a bill which responds to the mandate 
concerns and assures continued high standards of public health.
  I consider the safe drinking water bill to be a major success. It 
shows that we can address issues related to Federal mandates and 
protection of the environment and public health in a responsible 
manner.


                          the clean water act

  Within the next several weeks, the Senate will turn to another major 
environmental statute--the Clean Water Act.
  Like the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act is regularly 
cited as the source of a number of unfunded Federal mandates.
  This charge seems somewhat ironic because the Clean Water Act has 
wide public support and a solid record of accomplishment. Ninety-six 
percent of Americans consider water quality the most important 
environmental issue, ahead of toxic waste, ahead of air pollution, 
ahead of most any other environmental issue. And most Americans believe 
that the Clean Water Act has brought about significant improvement in 
the quality of our rivers, lakes, and coastal waters.
  Most important, the act relies on a balanced partnership of local, 
State, and Federal Governments to pay the costs of water pollution 
control. The Federal Government has made a substantial and sustained 
commitment to funding of sewage treatment projects.
  Since the Clean Water Act was first passed in 1972, the Federal 
Government has provided some $60 billion for sewage treatment. States 
and localities have provided at least $25 billion more.
  Nevertheless, as the Environment and Public Works Committee developed 
legislation to reauthorize the Clean Water Act, we took a close look at 
the mandate issue. Following the same approach as with the safe 
drinking water bill, we evaluated the requirements imposed on local and 
State governments and the funding provided by the Federal Government.
  I am confident that the clean water amendments we have reported in S. 
2093 make a good law even better.
  We have made two important changes to the act relating to Federal 
mandates. First, we have extended and improved the clean water funding 
provisions of the act. Second, we have evaluated specific requirements 
of the act related to municipalities and have proposed amendments which 
will save communities as much as $12 billion over the next several 
years.


                           increased funding

  Today, many communities have facilities to provide secondary 
treatment of sewage, but municipalities still have significant needs 
for water quality projects. EPA estimates that the costs of sewage 
treatment projects over the next 20 years to be over $100 billion.
  The current law provides for Federal funding of about $2 billion per 
year to capitalize State loan funds. States provide a 20-percent match 
to these Federal funds and then loan the money at low interest rates to 
communities for clean water projects. Authorization for this funding 
was scheduled to end in 1994, when funds were expected to be fully 
capitalized.
  The reported bill recognizes the substantial remaining need for 
sewage treatment facilities and authorizes continued capitalization of 
State loan funds through the year 2000. This funding authorization 
increases over the authorization period to a total of $5 billion per 
year if the Congress maintains progress in deficit reduction. The total 
authorization for State loan funds is $22.5 billion.
  Other amendments to the State loan fund provisions of the act would 
substantially increase flexibility and reduce regulatory burdens. Most 
important, States are able to use up to 20 percent of capitalization 
grants to forgive the principal of loans where such forgiveness is 
needed to assure that a project meets affordability guidelines 
established by the State.
  This is just a long way of saying if there are some communities that 
just do not have the money, do not have the funds to repay the loan, 
then the States can forgive up to 20 percent; they can forgive the 
principal of the loan for those distressed communities.
  The range of eligible uses of the State loan funds is also increased, 
giving States greater flexibility to fund the most important water 
quality projects in the State. Projects for the control of combined 
sewer overflows and control of stormwater discharges are specifically 
made eligible for assistance.
  In addition, the 1987 act carried a number of grant conditions into 
the new loan program. The bill deletes a significant number of these 
provisions.


                            reduced mandates

  The current Clean Water Act provides for the development of programs 
for the control of municipal discharges of stormwater and for the 
control of overflows from combined storm and sanitary sewers.
  The reported bill revises and substantially reduces the municipal 
stormwater permit requirements. The bill also provides new authority 
for development of long-term programs for the control of overflows of 
combined sewers.
  The EPA estimates that these two provisions will save communities 
over $12 billion over the next several years.
  The biggest savings are in the new program for control of combined 
sewer overflows. The bill adopts and endorses the combined sewer 
overflow strategy developed by the EPA in cooperation with municipal 
and environmental groups. The strategy will significantly reduce 
compliance costs while assuring the implementation of reasonable 
controls over combined sewer overflows. A key provision of the policy 
is to allow permits to last up to 15 years. The bill amends the law to 
specifically authorize making these long-term permits in the case of 
combined sewer overflows.
  Current law requires that the EPA develop permits for municipal 
discharges of stormwater which assure that the discharges will comply 
with water quality standards.
  The reported bill provides relief in two ways. First, for communities 
with populations of over 100,000, permits could include specific 
management measures, and these communities would not be subject to 
enforcement action if the permits resulted in the violation of water 
quality standards.
  Second, the bill removes the requirement for communities of under 
100,000 to have permits for discharge of stormwater except in a case 
where the EPA Administrator identifies a significant water pollution 
problem or where the community is associated with an urban area which 
already has a stormwater permit.


                        a sound mandates policy

  The Clean Water Act is one of this Nation's environmental success 
stories. Everyone supports clean water and most people are willing to 
pay for it.
  But even a solid law like the Clean Water Act can be improved. The 
bill the Senate will be considering responds to the concern local 
officials have with ``unfunded Federal mandates.'' It will 
substantially increase funding for municipal water pollution control 
projects, increase State flexibility in management of Federal 
assistance, and substantially reduce the requirements of current law 
relating to combined sewer overflows and stormwater discharges.
  At the same time, the bill assures that the substantial progress we 
have achieved in cleaning-up of water pollution over the past 20 years 
will continue.
  The bill, like legislation to reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water 
Act, is proof that the Congress can address concerns for unfunded 
mandates in a balanced and responsible manner.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues as we consider this 
important legislation.

                          ____________________