Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I want to thank the Senator from Nevada for raising this issue. I look forward to working with him as well to resolve this issue in conference.

Mr. MIKULSKI

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I want to thank the Senators from Iowa and Idaho for their remarks. You've laid out the issues regarding pesticide fees and EPA funding very well, and I look forward to working with them and the Senator from Missouri to resolve them.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the managers' amendment, as previously offered, with the deletion of the Lott amendment, be adopted.

Ms. MIKULSKI. If the gentlemen will yield, I thank the Senators for their discussion. Reduced-risk pesticides can provide farmers and others with alternative pesticides that may present lower risks to public health and the environment, and can help ensure that farmers continue to have the tools they need. Also, given the difficult task that EPA faces in making timely, scientific decision about pesticides, providing the tools that EPA needs to improve its decision making should be a high priority. I will work to ensure that these items receive every appropriate consideration as the VA/HUD bill moves forward.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, our colleague from Florida raises some very valid concerns. All of us want to ensure that our playgrounds, our back decks, and our picnic tables and anything with wood outside are not harmful to our children's health. If it is harmful to our children, it will be harmful to special needs populations such as the elderly. Of course, there is playground equipment that has a particular risk associated with it. The issue of arsenic in the ground and around playgrounds has also raised considerable attention. I acknowledge the validity of the Senator's concerns. I also want to acknowledge his frustration that the bureaucracy has not rigorously stood sentry over their voluntary effort and also that they have been a little slow in moving on an evaluation of this matter. This is an issue of great concern to this committee. In fact, the issue is in two agencies--the EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The good news is you have two agencies looking at it. The bad news often is getting them to work together and move it, which requires bilateral treaty negotiation. We think the Senator's amendment kind of moves it because that is what his amendment is. He doesn't take the position on the outcome. He doesn't come in with a muscular amendment to mandate without an evaluation. We think the Nelson approach is very prudent. He wants to have the EPA study, but at the same time he doesn't want the study to be a career in and of itself. We need to know. The kids need to know. The parents need to know. Guess what. The wood industry needs to know. They have been cooperating with the EPA in a voluntary way for a voluntary program. But to give you an idea of the complexity, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has jurisdiction over treated wood and any risk that might come from wood; the EPA has jurisdiction over the chemicals used to treat wood. One has jurisdiction over the chemicals and the other has jurisdiction over the wood. Now we are trying to get them to work together to come up quickly with an evaluation on treated wood. Both agencies have said they are working to ensure that wood-treated products are safe. The EPA has a voluntary labeling program with which the forestry industry has cooperated, but an evaluation shows that it has some very significant flaws. They say they are now working to enhance the program. But, again, I think we need to push them along to come up with the report that we need. Senator Nelson's amendment requires EPA, in consultation with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, to report to Congress on health and safety risks of chemically-treated wood and to recommend how consumers and State and local governments can be better informed about the potential health risks. And I am sure the forest industry wants to know that. They want to be good citizens. This is one of the important by- products. In early July, the Agency completed its review of the American Wood Preservers Institute proposal to strengthen information available to the consumer. The EPA says they are going to hold a public hearing of a scientific advisory board during the week of October 2 to give peer review on the Agency's hazardous assessment methodologies for calculating potential exposure in playgrounds. The Senator's amendment says 30 days within enactment; Is that correct?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Within enactment, or 30 days of the fiscal year?

Ms. MIKULSKI. That pretty much takes us into October and November. We think that is a strong message to EPA to move this process along. We think it is important they hold public hearings. We think it is important that they consult with their scientific advisory board. But we also would like them to operate within a 30-day framework to move this issue along. I thank the Senator. Rather than coming in saying legislate, mandate, and regulate, let's get the report. Then we can identify the most prudent way to protect consumers and to provide important information for the industry. I support this amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I think the statement of all of our colleagues points out why we really have to move this study along. I believe the committee is prepared to accept the Nelson amendment. As we move to conference, we also want to consult EPA about how long it will take them to collect their information. Here is where we are. EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission are in the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. We take our mandated reports to agencies very seriously because then we need them for the following year's appropriations. And the authorizers need them for the second session of the 107th Congress. So let's shoot for this 30 days because I think there is this sense of urgency, particularly at the local government rec center level. Right now they are worried about two things. They are worried about their kids being exposed to arsenic-treated wood, and they are worried about lawsuits. Local government should not be worried about either one. It is our job to stand sentry and give the best advice. I am ready to stand sentry over the bureaucracy to ensure a timely completion of this report so that not only will the concerns of Senator Nelson be settled, but really the concerns of the Nation. We thank him for being so assertive in this area. We are prepared to accept the amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its amendments and request a conference with the House, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I acknowledge the cooperation of the Senator working with us. Before I speak on the amendment, I am going to inform the Senator that we are scheduled to move his amendment aside at 12:30 when those tied up in Commerce are coming over. Then we are scheduled to come back to the amendment of the Senator, I believe, at quarter of 1. I want to advise the Senator of that. I think he was dealing with a very pressing New York need and did not hear the unanimous consent agreement, though we had the cooperation of his staff.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Before he leaves, the Senator from New York should know I am going to support his amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, one of the things that occurred in the VA-HUD budget as it came from the President was to eliminate $300 million for drug elimination in public housing. The Presiding Officer's predecessor was one of the champions of that, the distinguished former Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg. We worked hands on, on many of the items. We think that $300 million in drug elimination is a very important program. At the same time as we have been saying to the Senator from Arizona and others we are not going to break new ground in this bill because of the transitions both of the executive branch as well as the legislative branch, the committee has restored the $300 million in drug elimination funds. We have restored that because we know we have to get drugs out of public housing. We know we have to make sure, in getting the drugs out of public housing, that public housing provides an opportunity to be not only a way of life, but to lead to a better life. We turned to the authorizers and we encouraged them to hold hearings on what has the most efficacy, making sure public housing is neither a slum landlord nor an incubator for drug dealing, and we encouraged them to do that. The Schumer amendment mandates that we keep the gun buyback program which Secretary Martinez would like to eliminate. We think, again, it is the executive branch acting and so on. We need conversation, again, on what is the most effective way to deal with crime in our communities, gun violence in our communities. I have had in the past several years the most gruesome statistics in Maryland. I like being from a State of Super Bowl champions, and I love the show ``Homicide'' that was on, that was so terrific. But what I did not like was the homicide rate. Thanks to Mayor O'Malley and Commissioner Norris, we are bringing that down. But gun violence--we are like a war zone. The Schumer amendment would give our local police departments and our public housing authorities the opportunity to operate a gun buyback program using Federal dollars. But it is their choice. In other words, the Feds do not say you must do it, nor do the Feds say you cannot do it; it leaves it up to the local community whether they think it has efficacy in that area. It might not work in every community. We do not have that one-size-fits-all on how to deal with ending violence and getting drugs out of public housing. But each city or county should have the opportunity to operate a gun buyback program if it chooses. Many public housing complexes function almost as small cities unto themselves. They have their own police departments; they have their own governing authority. They really are, in some instances, small towns. We, of course, would like to make sure they have the sense of being a village. They have unique needs, require special help and attention. This program was started in 1999 during the Clinton administration. It provided up to $500,000 for police departments around the country to buy back and destroy weapons. During the first year of operation, 20,000 guns were taken off the street in 80 different cities. The amendment gives our local police more resources in fighting crime. We should not second-guess those local decisions on how to do it. Whether it is the cops on the beat or gun buybacks, it will allow the local authorities to do that. We must do everything we can to protect our citizens who live in public housing and those who live around public housing because everything that goes bad with public housing goes bad with the neighborhood near public housing. I support this Schumer amendment. I look forward to its adoption.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arizona repeat his question?

Ms. MIKULSKI. If the Senator will withhold, we have a very complicated unanimous consent here to accommodate Senators. I wish to bring to the Senator's attention that at about 5 until 2 we are going to have two votes: one on Kyl and one on Schumer. Then we will be happy for the Senator to send up his amendment. Maybe we will not be happy with the Senator's amendment, but we will be happy for the Senator to offer it.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I appreciate very much the comments from the Senator from Georgia. How will the surrounding neighborhood benefit from the result of the land acquisition?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we know the direction in which the Senator from Florida wants to go. He is deeply concerned about arsenic- treated wood. What he is evaluating, based on our advice, is whether he wants to offer something that is a mandate or pursue a more prudent direction in terms of a study. I believe his staff is coming over with the amendment. The Senator has a lot of concerns about this. I recommend he state now what those concerns are, and when staff gets here we can step back and he can offer his amendment. I encourage the more prudent course; however, the Senator is within his rights. Either way, we look forward to hearing the Senator's arguments. Also, I note the cooperation of my colleague, Senator Bond, that we could start at 9:30 and be ready to move forward. He is missing a very important Republican caucus and I thank him for his cooperation. I know President Bush and the Vice President are here. In his commitment, particularly to moving this bill and the funding for veterans and other compelling needs, he was willing to be gracious enough to work with the Democratic leadership and meet earlier in the day. I publicly thank him.

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.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, again, I thank the Senator from Arizona for proposing his amendment and moving with a promptness that is appreciated by both Senator Bond and I. I acknowledge the validity of many of the concerns that the Senator from Arizona raises. When you have a State such as Arizona, that certainly is growing in population, and you find out you are down on a list of Federal funds, it is, indeed, troubling. I also acknowledge the fact that the Nation is facing a clean water funding crisis. It is estimated that we have an annual funding shortfall for clean water infrastructure of at least $12 billion. I can honestly tell the Senator that if I gave $1 billion to every State in the Union over and above what is in our bill, it would be well used because it is needed. We have heard about water problems from failing septic tanks in the Delmarva region that you and I represent, where the rural poor really do not have the bucks to do it. We have heard about the big failing water systems in the Chicagos and the Baltimores, where they were built over 100 years ago, and it is beyond the scope of this Appropriations Committee to deal with it. We need full-scale authorizing hearings on the needs for America's water infrastructure--both the needs and the formula. So I acknowledge that this is a big deal and a big problem. There is not a community in this country--urban or rural--that does not have some important funding need related to water, whether it is from Baltimore to St. Louis to Stafford or Scottsdale, AZ. However, I must say, Senator Kyl's amendment is outside of the scope of the VA-HUD bill. I truly believe, because it is a formula change, that it will trigger essentially a water war on the VA-HUD bill. This is, indeed, an authorizing issue and should be addressed by the authorizers in comprehensive water infrastructure legislation. Last night we had an excellent discussion on the issue of arsenic. We all agreed that arsenic is a problem. We all agreed that complying with the Federal mandate on arsenic will also be a problem. So our colleague, the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, offered an amendment for authorizing on funding. We thought that was an excellent way to go and, wow, suddenly you had a Domenici-Mikulski-Schumer- Clinton-Bond--an amazing list of cosponsors. The message of that was not only that arsenic is a problem, but, like last night when we talked about it, how do we pay for these water issues? What we have done--again, working on a bipartisan basis--the VA-HUD bill does not break new ground on environmental issues. We essentially broke no new ground, whether it was on enforcement, whether it was reallocating from sewers to State revolving funds, and so on. We essentially kept the framework from last year to get the President to put his arms around it, to get our new EPA Administrator to put her arms around it, to then look at what EPA should be and what are some of the new changes we need to make. We think we have gotten off to a good start. Because this is a year of transition, both within the executive branch and also within this subcommittee, that was the framework we approached, so that we could be prudent, that we would not lurch ahead in either the executive or legislative branch and make mistakes that we would have to then go back and evaluate. As my colleagues know, often on environmental issues, we end up with either unfunded mandates or, in some instances, unintended consequences to what seems to be a good idea. The new chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works believes that water should be at the top of his agenda. He is here today to speak on that. EPA is currently working on a needs survey for clean water funding. This should be done early in the next calendar year. I cannot support the Kyl amendment until the authorizers have had an opportunity to examine the needs survey and we have the very important census data related to growth that the Senator from Arizona has talked about. We all acknowledge that Arizona has grown, but we want to have more data on that. Then we need to have recommendations on how to clearly allocate our clean water. There is also another issue with the actual formula that the Senator is proposing. It is going to be a little geeky here so stick with me. This amendment would require EPA to allocate the fiscal year 2002 clean water State revolving fund appropriation to the States using an allocation formula for the drinking water State revolving loan fund. Remember, we have two revolving loan funds: one for clean water and the other for drinking water. You might say: Why is that such a big deal? Dirty water is dirty water, and why not commingle the formulas? This is really inconsistent with the Nation's wastewater and clean water needs. Drinking water systems and wastewater systems are fundamentally different. They deal with two different problems. They focus on different pollutants. Wastewater systems concentrate on removing pollution that deteriorates our rivers, lakes, and our bays-- the Chair is familiar with it--the nitrogens, the phosphorous. That is why we have those problems on the Chesapeake Bay. The drinking water system removes pollutants and treats water to make sure it is safe to drink. One, we are drinking it; and the other drops it into the big drink like the Chesapeake Bay --two different things and two different kinds of pollution. When we get our drinking water, we are not dealing with phosphorous and nitrogen and those issues with which we have had to deal. In addition, the wastewater systems need to address shortcomings from the past, such as combined sewer overflows. Anyone from the city knows that this combined sewer overflow and the sanitary overflows are really big issues. There is no parallel to those issues in the drinking water systems. You can see how they are different. Then to use the same formulas, it gets to be a problem. Also, this amendment has another fundamental flaw. It references a water infrastructure needs survey to be conducted under the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA has advised the committee today that no such survey exists. The wastewater needs survey is required under the Clean Water Act, not the Safe Drinking Water Act. We are going to get lost here. We don't want to get lost on the Senator's needs or what we want to accomplish. This shows exactly why this is the wrong place to offer this amendment. It is so complicated. We have needs surveys. We have formulas. We have safe water. We have clean water. We have drinking water. We have dirty water. We have wastewater. We need to be clear that the formulas are based on the problem to be addressed as well as on population. Section 2 of the Senator's amendment is unclear. The Agency would be at a loss on how to calculate the formula given this direction. The needs for surface water quality projects differ geographically from drinking water projects. For example, some communities are served by central drinking water systems, but there is no municipal wastewater system. In another circumstance, a community may have a minor drinking water problem but might have a terrible or significant combined sewer overflow or a sanitary sewer overflow. As a result, surveying the construction needs of drinking water systems has no connection to the wastewater treatment system in the same community. The Presiding Officer was a Governor. I am sure he follows that. But most of all, local government follows it. Which brings me to another issue: Changes of this magnitude applied here with such scant notice would severely disrupt State programs. States must plan ahead. They have to use an expected range of capitalization grants for planning purposes. You have to know what you are going to get and when you are going to get it. Changes of the size implicit in the amendment would stop the State CWSRF, the clean water State revolving fund, loan programs for a significant period of time. This means that States would have to scurry around, prepare new intended-use plans, hold public hearings, try to get their bond issues straightened out. As you know, States have capital budgets. We don't. Capital budgets are based on what is going to come out of general revenue and what able Governors take to the bond market. A lot of our water and sewer is done on bonds, particularly at the local level. This is going to wreak havoc in all States. I know the Senator's intention is to get more money into some States. It will wreck havoc even in his own State. Keep in mind, we will not only have the loss of money but we will have the loss of time. It will affect our drinking water as well as our commitment to the environment. The clean water State revolving fund addresses clean water needs which are very different from drinking water. I have talked about that. The use of the drinking water State revolving fund would misdirect resources, resulting in a mismatch between the allocation of Federal funds by States and by the State's needs. I could go on: Who are winners, and who are losers. The important thing is, when it comes to water, there should be no losers. We all have our needs. We all have our problems. These formulas were originally established to meet those needs. Maybe there is the need to adjust those formulas. In every formula, some States gain and some States do not do as well as they should. Formulas are really complicated. They do approach the level of treaty negotiations. To try to do this on this bill would wreck havoc. It would trigger Senators coming to see what they are going to get and what they are going to lose. The more prudent way would be for there to be some type of instruction to EPA for evaluation. We would be happy to enter into a colloquy with both Senators from Arizona. We would be happy to sign a letter to the very able Administrator at the EPA outlining the concerns the Senators have. But we don't think we should have this amendment. If we pass this amendment, it is going to wreak havoc in the States with their ability to administer their programs; it is going to wreak havoc with the capital programs; it is going to wreak havoc with their bonds; and, most of all, it is going to wreak havoc with, really, the confusion that is going to come with using one formula for wastewater and use it also for drinking water. We really encourage--because it is not sound--this is not the place to enter into such a significant, complex public policy debate with enormous consequences to our constituents, to our communities, to our States and their ability to meet their fiscal responsibility as well as their environmental and public health stewardship. I am telling you, this is really the very wrong place to do this amendment. I oppose it.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank both Senators because last night the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, said he would be here at 10:30 this morning, ready to offer his amendment and ready to debate it and line up his speakers. He really met that commitment. We thank him for honoring that commitment. Also, he made it very clear last night that the other Senator from Arizona wished to speak. We want to be able to accommodate him because I think we have been moving along in a spirit of comity. I would just ask the proponent of the amendment if we could encourage those speakers to come to the Chamber. My remarks will not be of a prolonged nature. If the two Commerce Committee Senators could come over, I believe we could have this amendment wrapped up before lunch and, I think, would be moving in a well-paced way. Again, we want to keep the kind of atmosphere of civility that has set the tone of the bill. If everyone would notice, there has not even been a quorum call. So I am ready to make my remarks. We would then go to those two other colleagues to speak. I ask the Senator, are they coming? Mr. President, we are going to have a little quorum call, just for clarification. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI. If the Senator makes his motion to table, does that terminate the debate? I ask the Senator, in the spirit of----

Ms. MIKULSKI. Would the Senator withhold? I want to speak. I also understand there are two other Members who wish to speak. Will the Senator withhold because I understand the other Senator from Arizona wishes to speak?