May 17, 1994
What about interest rates? Let us say the interest rate the community must pay Uncle Sam is not providing for interest payments. Is Uncle Sam fully funding the mandate or not?
Max Baucus
The Public Record
Max Baucus is a former U.S. Senator from Montana, serving from 1978 to 2014. A member of the Democratic Party, Baucus was known for his work on health care reform and tax policy. He played a significant role in the passage of the Affordable Care Act and was a key advocate for various economic initiatives during his tenure. Baucus also served as the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, where he influenced legislation related to taxation and trade. After leaving the Senate, he was appointed as the U.S. Ambassador to China, where he focused on strengthening U.S.-China relations.
govinfo.gov
May 17, 1994
I first want to give a compliment to the Senator from New Mexico. He has been diligent--which is, I might say, an understatement--in the number of times that he has talked to me about addressing border problems facing New Mexico. I would…
May 17, 1994
the basic question is unfunded mandates. What is the concern? The concern on the part of many people is that the U.S. Government asks various States and cities and localities to undertake certain action in the name of protecting the public…
May 17, 1994
I worked often, and long hours and days, with the Senator from Arizona over this project and many others. The people of Arizona should be proud of the hard work of the Senator from Arizona. He has worked diligently and spent many…
May 17, 1994
I take my hat off to the Senator from Nebraska. He has worked long and hard with the committee to make this a better bill. I have had many discussions with the Senator from Nebraska in the last couple of months, as with his colleague…
May 17, 1994
One other question. What happens when a community decides, for whatever reason, it wants to voluntarily not accept Federal funds. It does not want to pay the interest rate in the State revolving loan fund, for whatever reason. It decides…
May 17, 1994
Under current law, safe drinking water funding in fiscal years 1994 through 2000 will be $420 million. That money is going to the States. Under this bill, if it passes, $7.3 billion will go to States to fund the reformed mandates that the…
May 17, 1994
So it is the Senator's position that the Congress would not be irresponsible if the Congress decided to provide 1 percent of the revolving loan fund as opposed to 80 percent. That would not be irresponsible?
May 17, 1994
I do not want to prolong this too much longer. Essentially, the Senator from New Hampshire said this bill does not go into the difficult question of what is and what is not an unfunded mandate. That is very true. That is clear. This bill…
May 17, 1994
What if the community goes beyond the grace period in the bill? The legislation before us provides certain grace periods. As long as this system is making a good-faith effort, there is no prosecution. What happens after that grace period?
May 17, 1994
I do think it is important to point out that this is a gutting amendment. Why do I say that? I say that because, first of all, there are not very many EPA inspectors. The enforcement personnel are pretty thin, and there are not going to be…
May 17, 1994
Essentially the letter states that he, Mr. Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Water in the Environmental Protection Agency, is deeply concerned about the amendment offered by Senator Gregg. He says it would upset the careful balance…
May 17, 1994
essentially, very clearly, we have already debated this issue many times. The provisions of the bill apply to the same--the same provisions currently apply to the Clean Water Act revolving loan fund and to the Safe Drinking Water revolving…
May 17, 1994
If I might, one other point, Mr. President. It is not as if the EPA is sending out thousands of inspectors to harass local water system operators either. That is just not the case. There is not a massive Federal enforcement apparatus in…
May 17, 1994
If I may complete my question--so that the State has its own monitoring system. This is a State monitoring system now. It is not a Federal monitoring system. Now, let us say that under the State monitoring system the State imposes certain…
May 17, 1994
Let me ask another question so we understand how it operates. Let us say a community in New Hampshire is starting to install a new technology to meet a standard that is provided for in the Safe Drinking Water Act; a good standard; a…
May 16, 1994
I would like to clarify in plain English our intent in using the phase ``the origins of drinking water contaminants of public health concern, including to the extent practicable the specific activities that affect the drinking water…
May 16, 1994
Yesterday the Senate approved the Warner-Conrad amendment regarding sourcewater protection. The amendment encourages communities to work cooperatively with the State and parties in the sourcewater area to pursue cost-effective pollution…
May 16, 1994
I think we could work this amendment out. It is my understanding it is just a word that is in question. I think it is ``or their representatives.''
May 12, 1994
the amendment I am offering on behalf of myself and Senator Chafee is essentially a managers' amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act legislation. This is an amendment that includes various provisions that Senator Chafee and I and many…
May 12, 1994
EPA policy has been based on the premise that there is no safe level of exposure to a cancer-causing substance. So the health goal under the Safe Drinking Water Act has been set at zero, reflecting treatment and analytical technology. The…
May 12, 1994
No, that would be a significant increase in risk and would not be permitted by this amendment. Increases in cancer risk of a lesser amount would be authorized. No matter what the feasible level is, an increase in cancer risk of the same…
May 12, 1994
No. The amendment requires that a less stringent standard ensure a reasonable certainty of no harm to human health. Unlike the standards for cancer-causing substances, there is no risk of adverse effects with the current standards that…
May 12, 1994
No. We intend significant to be used in the everyday meaning of the term and not in the statistical sense. During the development of these amendments, we heard very loudly two important points: First, that one standard setting process will…
May 12, 1994
For most other health effects addressed the act, the Administrator has been able to identify a threshold for the health effect below which no adverse health effect is expected to occur from the presence of the contaminant in drinking…
Politicians like Max Baucus
