[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 105 (Monday, July 29, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7470-S7471]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. 
        Inhofe):
  S. 2813. A bill to improve the financial and environmental 
sustainability of the water programs of the United States; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining 
my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee to 
introduce the Water Quality Investment Act of 2002. When I because 
Chairman of the Committee in 1999, one of my top priorities was a 
renewed commitment to our Nation's water systems and the Americans 
served by them. Senator Crapo, as Chairman of the Fisheries, Wildlife 
and Water Subcommittee shared my commitment and made this issue a focus 
of his subcommittee.
  Earlier this year, I joined with Chairmen Jeffords and Graham, as 
well as Senator Crapo, to introduce S. 1961, the Water Investment Act. 
This was a strong bipartisan bill that took compromise by all four 
members to achieve. Unfortunately, the bill that was reported out of 
Committee was a partisan proposal that added several provisions that 
will prevent the bill from moving forward. Our majority colleagues 
insisted on changing the principled funding formula included in S. 1961 
for a politically driven one that has no hope of surviving the lengthy 
legislative process while also compromising the needs of the country's 
small States. Further, they added Davis Bacon, an onerous labor 
provision that continues to divide the Senate and only serves to cloud 
the future of an otherwise strong bill.
  While I can no longer support S. 1961, clean water remains one of my 
top priorities as the Ranking Republican on the EPW Committee. 
Therefore, I join Senators Inhofe and Crapo today in introducing a 
streamlined bill that is free of the controversies that now plague S. 
1961.
  I am a strong advocate of limited government and when it comes to 
water infrastructure, I do not believe the primary responsibility of 
financing local water needs lies with the Federal Government. I am 
equally adamant, however, that the Federal Government should not place 
unfunded mandates on our local communities. This bill strikes a 
responsible balance between meeting Federal obligations and maintaining 
local responsibility and state flexibility.
  So much of our Nation's water infrastructure is aging and in 
desperate need of replacement. Coupled with the aging problem is the 
cost burden that local communities face in order to comply with ever 
increasing State and Federal clean water mandates. This bill addresses 
these problems and makes structural changes to ensure that we avoid a 
national crisis now and in the future.
  The legislation authorizes $35 billion over the next 5 years in 
Federal contribution to the total water infrastructure need to help 
defray the cost of the mandates placed on communities. This is a 
substantial increase in Federal commitment, but not nearly as high as 
some would have preferred.
  This commitment does not come without additional responsibilities. 
When the Clean Water Act was amended by Congress in 1987, a debate I 
remember well, we set up a revolving fund so more Federal money would 
not be required. The fund would continually revolve providing a 
continual pool of money for water needs. Unfortunately, appropriations 
have not kept pace with the Federal share and the funds have not been 
able to revolve at levels necessary to meet the increasing need. 
Further, as more Federal mandates have been imposed on local 
communities, facilities have exhausted their useful life while local 
officials have found raising water rates unpalatable. Thus, what was 
not to be

[[Page S7471]]

Federal responsibility became a Federal necessity. Now we are faced 
with a near crisis situation.

  This bill makes certain that we do not go down that road again. The 
Federal government will help to defray the costs of Federal mandates, 
but with the new money comes a new requirement that all utilities do a 
better job of managing their funds and plan for future costs. The bill 
requires utilities to assess the condition of their facility and pipes 
and develop a plan to pay for the long-term repair and replacement of 
these assets. That plan will include Federal assistance, but it will be 
limited assistance.
  We also make additional structural changes to the law both to address 
financial concerns and to help achieve improved management of these 
water systems. One such change to the Clean Water Act is to incorporate 
a Drinking Water Act provision that allows States, at their discretion, 
to provide principal forgiveness on loans and to extend the repayment 
period for loans to disadvantaged communities. This flexibility will 
provide help to communities struggling with high combined sewer 
overflow cost to secure additional financial help. This bill also 
promotes other important cost saving measures that many communities are 
already experimenting with throughout the country. It will also provide 
much needed information and planning tools to communities across the 
country who are experiencing a months-long drought.
  Again, I am disappointed I could not maintain my support for S. 1961, 
the Water Investment Act. However, the bill that passed the Committee 
took several steps in the wrong direction by including not only a 
formula but new mandates and regulatory requirements that will prevent 
the bill from moving forward. Clean water should be a priority for 
every member of the Senate. We need to come together around a bill that 
can go forward. S. 1961 is no longer that bill.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the Water 
Quality Investment Act this year and commemorate the 30th Anniversary 
of the Clean Water Act with a renewed commitment to the nation's 
waterways and the people who depend on them.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise with my colleague, Senator Bob 
Smith, to introduce the Water Quality Investment Act of 2002. We are 
introducing this legislation to reinvigorate the debate on investing in 
our Nation's water and wastewater infrastructure.
  When I became Chairman of the Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water 
Subcommittee, I began the long process of assessing the performance of 
our water and wastewater infrastructure statutes and exploring needed 
improvements to address outstanding problems. With the able partnership 
of Senator Smith, over the past 3 years, I convened many hearings and 
meeting with the stakeholders and agency officials to better understand 
how to address the problems of communities with unmet water and 
wastewater infrastructure needs.
  Earlier this year, Senator Smith and I joined with Senator Bob Graham 
and Senator Jim Jeffords to introduce S. 1961, the Water Investment 
Act. As introduced, this measure represented a strong and principled 
bipartisan measure. The major facets of the bill, heightened investment 
levels in our infrastructure, increased flexibility to states, and 
strong accountability by utilities, reflect the commonalities of need 
and recommendations by stakeholders, experts, and communities. I 
commend my colleagues for their hard work and the partnership we 
established in putting together a model bill, which was closely 
followed by our colleagues in the House of Representatives.
  I am proud of the overwhelming support that bill generated. As 
introduced, S. 1961 represented the collaboration and hard work of many 
who recognize that the goal of assisting communities should be our 
guiding principle. Too many communities are waiting for the assistance 
this bill will provide to see the legislation brought down by 
difficult, unnecessary proposals.
  While by no means perfect, I hoped the committee process would not 
turn this legislation into a vehicle for individual proposals and 
controversial concepts. Against my hope, S. 1961 started to unravel as 
some worked to undermine the compromise and the bipartisan nature of 
the legislation. As you are well aware, the markup for S. 1961 was 
contentious and divisive. It was unfortunate that S. 1961, which 
started out as a bipartisan effort between the four principals, ended 
up in partisan votes. Despite many warnings, some felt it necessary to 
bring this legislation down simply to advance narrow agendas.
  I have welcomed the opportunity to work again with committed 
stakeholders and others to craft this carefully-balanced measure. This 
new bill builds upon the foundations of S. 1961 as introduced and adds 
important refinements brought forward by the affected communities and 
stakeholders. It is a proposal that serves the critical needs of our 
nation's water and wastewater infrastructure in a cost-effective and 
responsible manner.
  I look forward to the Senate's consideration of a sound, balanced, 
and carefully-deliberated bill to address the water and wastewater 
needs of the Nation. I believe all of us share that goal and we should 
all rally around the Water Quality Investment Act as the means to 
achieve that goal.
                                 ______