Small System Safe Drinking Water Act of 2010

Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor a bill Senator Snowe introduced today to conduct a study on the technical policy decision-making process and the availability of technical personnel at the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC.

Professionals in the STEM fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics have always been our Nation's problem solvers. They help us solve great challenges in energy, health, security, and transportation. Their innovation creates jobs, jobs that will continue to lead us on the path to economic recovery.

Still, the number of STEM professionals in some of our government's most critical agencies has been declining. In 1948, the FCC had 720 engineers on staff. Today, while communications technologies have become increasingly complex, it has fewer than 300 engineers. Over the years, there has been a shift in the FCC from hiring engineers to hiring professional staff, resulting in a shortage of network engineers. What is more, a high proportion of these experienced engineers are eligible to retire within the next few years. That means that, as communications technology continues to change the way we engage our world, the FCC may face a critical shortage.

This legislation proposes a study by the National Academy of Sciences to address these issues. Specifically, the study will examine the FCC's technical policy decisionmaking, including if the FCC has the adequate resources, processes, and personnel in place to evaluate properly and to account for the technical aspects of the Commission's rulemaking process. It will also examine the current technical personnel staffing levels and FCC recruiting and hiring processes of technical staff and engineers. Finally, the study will provide recommendations to improve each of these areas.

It is critical that we include engineers in our Nation's technical policy and decision making, at the FCC and across the government. I am pleased that this study will explore the implications and offer recommendations for the decline of engineers in this important agency and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Senator Snowe's efforts.

Mr. President, I rise today to support the Engineering Education for Innovation Act, or E-squared for Innovation Act. I am proud to cosponsor this bill with Senator Gillibrand, introduced today, along with Senators Snowe, Cantwell, Klobuchar, and Murray. This bill will help us meet the engineering education challenges I have often spoken about on the Senate floor by awarding, planning, and implementation grants to States to integrate engineering education into their K-12 curriculum and instruction. It also funds the research and evaluation of all such efforts.

I believe we are at a crucial moment for science, technology, engineering, and math, or STEM education. Today's engineers have a central role to play in developing the innovative technologies that will help our economy recover and promote real job growth. In turn, we must promote policies and programs that help to generate greater interest in STEM and actually lead to the production of a greater number of engineers.

Last year, the National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council released their seminal report on engineering in K-12 education. According to their report, K-12 engineering education can improve student learning and performance in science and math and increases students' technological literacy. It can also increase awareness of the engineering profession and boost student interest in pursuing a career in the field.

The report stressed the need for greater coordination among key stakeholders to develop common definitions and grade level appropriate goals for engineering education. It also emphasized the need for more research on the impacts of engineering education and potential models for implementation. The E-squared for Innovation Act seeks to address these recommendations in three ways.

First, the legislation awards planning grants to State educational agencies to review any existing engineering education resources in the State and to develop implementation plans to integrate K-12 engineering education into curriculum and instruction. Grantees must coordinate these activities with a number of partners, including the Governor's office, institutions of higher education, teachers and administrators

at public elementary and secondary schools, and other relevant players in the State.

Second, the E-squared for Innovation Act provides implementation grants to State educational agencies to carry out a number of activities, including developing academic standards, curricula, and assessments that include engineering; recruiting and training qualified teachers to deliver engineering education; and investing in afterschool engineering education programs. Priority will be given to applicants who serve a significant percentage of student populations underrepresented in engineering.

Third, the bill charges the Institute of Education Sciences with conducting research and evaluation on the grants awarded. These studies will determine the effectiveness of the programs and activities at improving student achievement in STEM education and assess how successful programs can be replicated.

The E-squared for Innovation Act is supported by a diverse list of 77 organizations. To name a few, supporters include the National Center for Technological Literacy, the American Society for Engineering Education, the Delaware Foundation for Science and Mathematics Education, IBM, Intel, the University of California, the National Society of Black Engineers, and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers--just to name a few. I am truly amazed but genuinely pleased at the wide-reaching support for this bill.

Norm Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin, expressed strong support for the E-squared for Innovation Act, adding:

One of the many reasons our nation does not seem to attract

young people into engineering is that many seem to have no

idea what an engineer does. Although we attempt to teach math

and science in K-12, seldom do we expose students to

engineering.

Many in my home State recognize this problem and, consequently, support for STEM programs is growing in Delaware. Governor Jack Markell recently launched a STEM education council in Delaware to bring together teachers, business leaders, curriculum specialists, higher education representatives, and others to focus on innovative STEM programs and curricula that engage young people in Delaware in STEM education. The council will assist in Federal grant applications for STEM-related programs and support effective professional development programs in STEM areas.

In STEM-focused schools across Delaware, students are learning how to extract DNA from fruit, build robots that can throw balls, perform forensic investigations, make ``slime'' and lip balm, and more. It is through these types of comprehensive, hands-on activities that we will get young people interested in tackling and learning STEM subjects and eventually pursuing engineering jobs. The E-squared for Innovation Act is just the kind of program we need to bolster these activities in Delaware and ensure more students nationwide have access to these exciting engineering opportunities.

I cannot stress enough how much I believe this Nation is at a crossroads in STEM education and that this is our opportunity to push forward and create an environment that will cultivate and encourage our next generation of engineers. They will foster the research and innovation that will help us solve challenges such as clean drinking water, lifesaving cures for cancer and disease, renewable energy, affordable health care, and environmental sustainability.

Our country is counting on these future engineers, and the E-squared for Innovation Act is a step in the right direction to support and encourage them.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ROADS SAFE Act of 2010. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this legislation by my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Bob Corker.

This legislation will encourage the development of new tools to fight drunk driving and has the potential to save 8,000 lives every year.

Tragic drunk driving crashes often prompt communities to do more to prevent drunk driving. This was the case in my home State of New Mexico back in 1992, when a drunk driver killed a mother and her three girls on Christmas Eve. He was speeding down the highway 90 miles an hour, going the wrong way down an interstate highway. This crash helped change attitudes in my State. But it should not take a tragedy for us to do more to prevent drunk driving.

In 2008, drunk driving killed about 12,000 Americans, including 143 people in New Mexico. That is an average of 32 people killed every day by drunk driving. This unacceptable death toll is all the more shocking when you consider that each one of those deaths was preventable.

The United States has already made significant progress. Compared to 20 years ago, our roads are much safer today. Yet even as the overall number of people killed on our highways has

declined, drunk driving still accounts for about one-third of all traffic fatalities.

It is even more worrisome that a drunk driver has just a 2-percent chance of being caught. In fact, one study found that a first-time drunk driving offender has, on average, driven drunk 87 times before being arrested. Imagine, 87 times. This is unacceptable. Something must be done to prevent these drivers from getting on the road in the first place.

The good news is, there are potential technologies out there that could do that. That is why Senator Corker and I are introducing the ROADS SAFE Act today. New safety technology has already transformed the automobile and saved countless lives. For example, airbags and antilock brakes are now standard features in many vehicles. These safety devices are built into the car and are unobtrusive to the driver. Such technologies are an important reason we have fewer traffic fatalities today.

Imagine a future with vehicles that could detect whether a driver is drunk when he or she gets behind the wheel--before he or she even starts their vehicle. That would be no drunk driving crashes if it were impossible for drunk drivers to drive. If such technology were widely deployed in cars, an estimated 8,000 lives could be saved every year.

I realize many may think this is a farfetched idea. Yet consider that vehicles today can already give driving directions, thanks to GPS satellite navigation devices. Some cars can even parallel park themselves. New Mexico and other States require convicted drunk drivers to use an ignition interlock, a breathalyzer device they blow into before their vehicle's engine will start. The success of ignition interlocks for preventing repeat drunk driving offenses suggests a better technology could be used to prevent all drunk driving.

In 2006, Mothers Against Drunk Driving convened an international technology symposium in Albuquerque, NM. The goal of the meeting was to review efforts to develop advanced ignition interlocks technology.

In 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration partnered with leading automakers to explore the feasibility of in-vehicle technologies to prevent drunk driving. The recent progress of this cooperative effort fuels optimism that such technology could be deployed within 5 to 10 years.

Clearly, such advanced technologies must win widespread public acceptance in order to be effective. They must be moderately priced, absolutely reliable, and unobtrusive to sober drivers.

The aim is to stop drunk driving, not discourage responsible social drinking. A recent Insurance Institute for Highway Safety poll found that 64 percent of Americans believe advanced alcohol detection technology is a good idea and that it is reliable.

What would the ROADS SAFE Act do? This legislation would authorize $12 million in annual funding for 5 years for the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety Program, also known as DADSS.

DADSS is a public-private partnership between NHTSA and the Automobile Coalition for Traffic Safety. The goal is to explore the feasibility, potential benefits, and public policy challenges associated with using in- vehicle technology to prevent drunk driving.

This increased Federal funding to combat drunk driving is a smart investment in public safety. Drunk driving has direct and indirect economic costs in terms of damaged property, medical bills, and lost productivity. In economic terms, drunk driving costs $129 billion per year. Of course, such monetary costs cannot be compared to the value of saving 8,000 lives every year.

Several organizations dedicated to fighting drunk driving already support this bipartisan proposal. Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Century Council, and the Distilled Spirits Council all support the ROADS SAFE Act.

I urge my Senate colleagues to join me, Senator Corker, and these important organizations in the fight against drunk driving by supporting the ROADS SAFE Act. We have made much progress in our efforts to prevent drunk driving, but there is so much more to be done.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Small System Drinking Water Act of 2009. This is the third Congress that I have introduced this bill which would assist water systems throughout the country comply with the ever growing number of federal drinking water standards. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Mike Crapo, James Risch, John Barrasso and David Vitter as cosponsors of this legislation. My bill will require the Federal Government to live up to its obligations and require the EPA to use the tools it was given in the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments, SDWA.

My goal here is to ensure that small towns across the country have safe, affordable drinking water and that the laws are fair to small and rural communities. Currently EPA assumes that families can afford water rates of 2.5 percent of their annual median household income, or $1,000 per household. For some families, paying $83 a month for water may not be a hardship but for so many more, it is nearly impossible. There must be some flexibility inserted into the calculation that factors in the ability of the truly disadvantaged to pay these costs. Forcing systems to raise rates beyond what their ratepayers can afford only causes more damage than good.

EPA needs to look more closely at how it determines affordability. My bill directs EPA to take additional factors into consideration when making this determination. These include ensuring that the affordability criteria are not more costly on a per-capita basis to a small water system than to a large water system.

In EPA's most recent drinking water needs survey, Oklahoma identified a total of over $4.1 billion in drinking water needs over the next 20 years. $2.4 billion of that need is for community water systems that serve fewer than 10,000 people. The $4.1 billion does not include the total costs imposed on Oklahoma communities to meet federal clean water requirements, the new Groundwater rule, the DBP II rule or the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. Oklahoma continues to have municipalities struggling with the 2002 arsenic rule. Many of our small systems are having difficulty with the Disinfection Byproducts, DBP, Stage I rule, and small systems who purchase water from other systems and did not have to test, treat or monitor their water must now comply with DBP II. EPA estimates that over the next 20 years, the entire country will need $52.0 billion to come into compliance with existing, proposed or recently promulgated regulations.

My bill proposes a few simple steps to help systems comply with all these rules. First, it reauthorizes the technical assistance program in the Safe Drinking Water Act. The DBP rules are very complex and involve a lot of monitoring and testing. If we are going to impose complicated requirements on systems, we need to provide them with help to implement those requirements.

The bill creates a pilot program to demonstrate new technologies and approaches for systems of all sizes to comply with these complicated rules. It requires the EPA to convene a working group to examine the science behind the rules in order to compare new developments since each rule's publication.

Section 1412(b)(4)(E) of the SDWA Amendments of 1996 authorizes the use of point of entry treatment, point of use treatment and package plants to economically meet the requirements of the Act. However, to date, these approaches are not widely used by small water systems. My legislation directs the EPA to convene a working group to identify barriers to the use of these approaches. The EPA will then use the recommendations of the working group to draft a model guidance document that states can use to create their own programs.

Most importantly this bill requires the federal government to pay for these unfunded mandates created by laws and regulations. In 1995, Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to ensure that the Federal Government pays the costs incurred by State and local governments in complying with Federal laws. My bill is designed to ensure that EPA cannot take an enforcement action against a system serving less than 10,000 people, without first ensuring that it has sufficient funds to meet the requirements of the regulation.

Since the 108th Congress, I have coauthored and cosponsored legislation to provide additional resources to communities through the State Revolving Loan Funds. Unfortunately, not much has changed. We still have too many regulations and not enough money to pay for them. Funding legislation is important but until that money becomes available, it is unreasonable to penalize and fine local communities because they cannot afford to pay for regulations we imposed on them. I thank my colleagues and look forward to their support of this commonsense proposal.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Small System Drinking Water Act of 2009. This is the third Congress that I have introduced this bill which would assist water systems throughout the country comply with the ever growing number of federal drinking water standards. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Mike Crapo, James Risch, John Barrasso and David Vitter as cosponsors of this legislation. My bill will require the Federal Government to live up to its obligations and require the EPA to use the tools it was given in the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments, SDWA.

My goal here is to ensure that small towns across the country have safe, affordable drinking water and that the laws are fair to small and rural communities. Currently EPA assumes that families can afford water rates of 2.5 percent of their annual median household income, or $1,000 per household. For some families, paying $83 a month for water may not be a hardship but for so many more, it is nearly impossible. There must be some flexibility inserted into the calculation that factors in the ability of the truly disadvantaged to pay these costs. Forcing systems to raise rates beyond what their ratepayers can afford only causes more damage than good.

EPA needs to look more closely at how it determines affordability. My bill directs EPA to take additional factors into consideration when making this determination. These include ensuring that the affordability criteria are not more costly on a per-capita basis to a small water system than to a large water system.

In EPA's most recent drinking water needs survey, Oklahoma identified a total of over $4.1 billion in drinking water needs over the next 20 years. $2.4 billion of that need is for community water systems that serve fewer than 10,000 people. The $4.1 billion does not include the total costs imposed on Oklahoma communities to meet federal clean water requirements, the new Groundwater rule, the DBP II rule or the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. Oklahoma continues to have municipalities struggling with the 2002 arsenic rule. Many of our small systems are having difficulty with the Disinfection Byproducts, DBP, Stage I rule, and small systems who purchase water from other systems and did not have to test, treat or monitor their water must now comply with DBP II. EPA estimates that over the next 20 years, the entire country will need $52.0 billion to come into compliance with existing, proposed or recently promulgated regulations.

My bill proposes a few simple steps to help systems comply with all these rules. First, it reauthorizes the technical assistance program in the Safe Drinking Water Act. The DBP rules are very complex and involve a lot of monitoring and testing. If we are going to impose complicated requirements on systems, we need to provide them with help to implement those requirements.

The bill creates a pilot program to demonstrate new technologies and approaches for systems of all sizes to comply with these complicated rules. It requires the EPA to convene a working group to examine the science behind the rules in order to compare new developments since each rule's publication.

Section 1412(b)(4)(E) of the SDWA Amendments of 1996 authorizes the use of point of entry treatment, point of use treatment and package plants to economically meet the requirements of the Act. However, to date, these approaches are not widely used by small water systems. My legislation directs the EPA to convene a working group to identify barriers to the use of these approaches. The EPA will then use the recommendations of the working group to draft a model guidance document that states can use to create their own programs.

Most importantly this bill requires the federal government to pay for these unfunded mandates created by laws and regulations. In 1995, Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to ensure that the Federal Government pays the costs incurred by State and local governments in complying with Federal laws. My bill is designed to ensure that EPA cannot take an enforcement action against a system serving less than 10,000 people, without first ensuring that it has sufficient funds to meet the requirements of the regulation.

Since the 108th Congress, I have coauthored and cosponsored legislation to provide additional resources to communities through the State Revolving Loan Funds. Unfortunately, not much has changed. We still have too many regulations and not enough money to pay for them. Funding legislation is important but until that money becomes available, it is unreasonable to penalize and fine local communities because they cannot afford to pay for regulations we imposed on them. I thank my colleagues and look forward to their support of this commonsense proposal.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Kaufman, to introduce legislation that puts a greater focus on efforts to improve the technical resources and decision-making process at the Federal Communications Commission. The bill proposes a study by the National Academy of Sciences on the technical policy decision-making process and the availability of technical personnel at FCC.

Over the past several years, there have been concerns voiced by the technical community and even Commissioners themselves about the lack of technical resources and expertise at the Federal Communications Commission, FCC. It is for good reason: in 1948, the FCC had 720 engineers on staff; today, it has fewer than 300--an astonishing 62 percent reduction--even though the FCC now must face technical issues concerning the Internet, advanced wireless communications, and broadband. Also, FCC officials have recently acknowledged a shortage of network engineers and that a large number of experienced engineers are eligible to retire within the next few years.

Yet, communications technologies are becoming increasingly complex-- evolving from the traditional circuit-switched phone networks to packet-based dynamic-routing high-bandwidth data networks. The need to thoroughly address these issues challenges staff and leads to delays or even inaction in technical rulemakings since the Commission doesn't have the appropriate resources for timely technical evaluation and decisionmaking.

Technical proceedings, including those to authorize new technologies, have been dismally slow--typically taking 2-5 years for approval-- creating a bottleneck for innovation and competition.

A December 2009 report by the Government Accountability Office, GAO- 10-10-79, reaffirms these concerns and provides additional evidence of the need for such a study. The GAO concluded that ``weaknesses in FCC's processes for collecting and using information also raise concerns regarding the transparency and informed nature of FCC's decisionmaking process.'' Furthermore, the report found the ``FCC faces challenges in ensuring it has the expertise needed to adapt to a changing marketplace.''

With the rapid advancement of technologies and innovation within the telecommunications industry, the FCC must be better equipped and more agile to address the ever-changing technical landscape from a regulatory perspective. If it isn't, our Nation's technical leadership in this area will continue to erode and it will be even more difficult to lay the proper policy foundation necessary to meet future telecommunications needs.

To better examine these significant issues and make tangible recommendations toward a comprehensive solution, this legislation proposes a study by the National Academy of Sciences on the technical policy decisionmaking process and the availability of technical personnel at FCC. Specifically, the study would include an examination of the FCC's technical policy decisionmaking, current technical personnel staffing levels, and agency recruiting and hiring processes of technical staff and engineers, and recommendations to improve these areas. The study would provide tangible and specific proposals to streamline processes and rulemakings as well as how the FCC can be more competitive in hiring the required technical personnel to make it more effective. The bill authorizes $1 million over a 2-year period to conduct this comprehensive technical study.

This bill takes a step towards ensuring the Commission has the adequate resources and proper technical decisionmaking processes in place to be a more effective agency. This is absolutely critical given how rapidly technologies are changing and the implications that regulation could have on the underlying technical catalysts of innovation. It is also critical to overall reform at the Commission because in

order to properly regulate communications, the FCC must be deeply knowledgeable of both the legal and technical aspects of the issues before it. That is why I sincerely hope that my colleagues join Senator Kaufman and me in supporting this important legislation.