[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 81 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1046]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                 REAUTHORIZATION OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT

                                 ______


                      HON. BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN

                              of arkansas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 16, 1995
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment 
with provisions added at the last minute to H.R. 961, the Clean Water 
Amendments of 1995. The bill made an honest effort to correct some of 
the problems with the current Act. However, while I supported some of 
the strong elements of the bill, including the wetlands and the private 
property provisions, I could not, with good conscience, support the 
final amended bill.
  During consideration of H.R. 961, the House approved an amendment 
that altered the allocation formula under the State Revolving Fund 
[SRF]. Under this new formula, the less industrialized States, like 
Arkansas, received significantly less money than they currently 
receive. The base bill contained a more equitable approach in its 
treatment of the allocation formula, but the amendment adopted by the 
House gutted the original agreement reached by the committee.
  Last year Arkansas received nearly $15 million under the SRF 
allocation. Under the amended bill, Arkansas would receive $8 million--
a 42 percent reduction.
  Arkansas has a well run SRF program, leveraging two times the amount 
of its SRF funding. Last year, Arkansas leveraged nearly $30 million 
from its $15 million allocation. The severe reduction in the amended 
bill not only reflects a $7 million reduction of federal obligated 
dollars, but it also adversely affects Arkansas' ability to leverage 
more funds. The bill's cut in fact represents a $14 million total loss 
in funds that could be used to finance much needed wastewater treatment 
plants and infrastructure needs throughout the State. With the many 
Federal requirements imposed on our communities, they need the capital 
to comply with these national mandates.
  Again, there were many provisions in the bill that I support, 
including relief for farmers under the wetlands and nonpoint source 
sections and small system hardship loans. However, when this bill pits 
Arkansas against other States in fighting for essential funds, I could 
not abandon Arkansas' needs in developing its clean water 
infrastructure.
  I hope that the chairman and other Members involved in the 
negotiations with the Senate will press on in their obligation to 
consider this equity issue during the conference and resolve this 
unacceptable situation for Arkansas and 28 other States that lost SRF 
funding under the new allocation scheme. I would like to have a bill 
that I could support on behalf of my farmers and my rural constituents.


                          ____________________