[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 117 (Friday, August 2, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9485-S9498]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1996--CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now turn to the conference report to accompany S. 1316, the safe
drinking water bill, that the conference report be considered as having
been read, and it be in order for me to order the yeas and nays on the
adoption of the conference report at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The report will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S.
1316) to reauthorize and amend title XIV of the Public Health
Service Act (commonly known as the ``Safe Drinking Water
Act''), and for other purposes; having met, after full and
free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to
their respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of
the conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to
the consideration of the conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of August 1, 1996.)
Mr. LOTT. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on the adoption
of the conference report at----
Mr. DASCHLE. If the majority leader will yield, I think we need to
check with our colleagues for a brief period of time to determine the
length of time that may be required to talk on this bill. I know of
little opposition, if any, but I do know of a number of Senators who
have expressed a desire to speak for the legislation. And so we would
not be prepared to enter into a time agreement, but I do not think it
will be that long.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, let me say then that the time for vote
will be announced later on today after consultation between the
minority leader and myself, and I ask unanimous consent that whatever
time is taken up, that it be equally divided between Senators Chafee
and Baucus or their designees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, while we are waiting for the managers of
this bill to come to the floor, we will work on these other issues.
I am glad to yield to the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator.
Madam President, I would like to thank the Chair, and I would like to
thank the majority leader for discussions and bargaining in good faith.
I very much appreciate the action taken. I thank you.
Mr. LOTT. I observe the absence of a quorum, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, could I ask what is the pending
business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The conference report on the Safe Drinking
Water Act.
Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I am prepared to enter into a time
agreement of 1 hour equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. The
agreement is 1 hour equally divided.
Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I will control the time on our side.
I ask the Chair that I be notified when I have used 8 minutes of my
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). The Chair will notify the
Senator when 8 minutes has expired.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in
the Environment and Public Works Committee in bringing the conference
report of the Safe Drinking Water Act before the Senate. The committee
has been working on this since 1993, and our efforts have received
broad, bipartisan support at every step. I particularly pay tribute to
the ranking member of this committee, who was the chairman of it during
the prior 2 years, the senior Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus. He
has done an excellent job and has been a real stalwart in achieving
reforms to the Safe Drinking Water Act. What we have before us is, to a
considerable extent, based upon the fine work he did while he was
chairman and the committee was under his guidance.
We all agree reform of the Safe Drinking Water Act is necessary.
Public health has been strengthened, there is no question, over the
standards that have been issued over the past several years. But these
new standards and new treatment have put a strain on the water
suppliers. This bill includes many provisions to ease that burden.
What is in the bill? There is a drinking water revolving loan fund
that the President first recommended. In addition to all that, the
States are authorized to reduce monitoring costs by developing their
own testing requirements. The States may grant variances to small
systems that cannot afford to comply with the national standard. We are
not rolling back any health protection that is now provided. No
existing standard will be weakened.
In addition to the SRF grants, there are new programs to prevent
pollution at the source. This program lets the cities and towns go to
the headwaters and see if they cannot clean up the pollution there,
rather than permitting the pollution to come down the river and then
the city has to invest in a very, very expensive water purification
plant. All of that makes sense.
The bill pushes hard for more and better science, including research
programs to determine whether some groups, like children or pregnant
women or people with particular illnesses, are likely to experience
adverse affects from drinking water contaminants.
Before describing the major provisions in detail, I wish to thank our
colleagues for the hard work they have done. Particularly, I thank
Senator Kempthorne, who was chairman of the subcommittee that dealt
with this bill. Senator Kempthorne, over many months with great
patience and superb knowledge of this bill, brought forward this
legislation which we now have before us, in essence. His efforts in
behalf of State and local governments and others is widely recognized.
The trust that Senator Kempthorne had built up with local officials
was, I believe, essential in achieving the compromise that is always
necessary when you sign a bill into law.
Senator Reid, the ranking member of that subcommittee, was a partner
in that effort and did excellent work. I mentioned the fine work that
Senator Baucus has done, and Senator Warner, likewise, and others.
I also want to thank the House leadership that we worked with,
Chairman Bliley and Congressman Dingell and Waxman and others who are,
obviously, members of the conference committee.
We had help from the office of water at the EPA, including Bob
Perciasepe, who heads the drinking water office.
Mr. President, if somebody were to ask what is the one thing we can
do that will most improve the safety of drinking water in the United
States, I think the answer would be help the small systems. There are
54,000 small drinking water systems in the United States, in trailer
parks, in villages, in small communities. There are thousands of these
systems that are operated by very small towns. Many of these very small
systems do not have,
[[Page S9486]]
obviously, the technical or financial resources to consistently provide
safe drinking water. They cannot keep up with the testing and
monitoring and determining which contaminants are and which are not so
dangerous over a short period of time. The operators have little or no
training.
These small systems have been overwhelmed by the regulations imposed
by the existing Safe Drinking Water Act, so the conference report that
we are bringing before us now, and passing, hopefully, in a short time,
addresses the problems of these small systems. How? First, as I
mentioned, a grant program, a State revolving loan fund starting off at
$725 million, that is for 1 year, provides Federal assistance to build
treatment plants, if that is what is required in these communities.
This system was proposed in 1993 by President Clinton. As I say, we
authorize it for $1 billion, hopefully with an appropriation this year
of $725 million.
That is the first big thing. The second is that each State adopts
what they call a capacity development strategy, to help these small
systems. A State strategy might include what the State decides when
they ask, what can we do to help each of these small communities? It is
not always necessarily money for investment. Sometimes it is money for
training the operators in these small communities, or technical
assistance on how do you develop a new safer water supply. It may be
the ground water in the present area is contaminated but there may be
other sources, deep wells or whatever it might be, that could produce
new and safer water. So we are relying on the States to take the lead
in designing this capacity enhancement strategy.
What are some of the other things that can be done under this bill?
The States are authorized to grant variances to small systems that
cannot comply with the stiff requirements you impose on the big cities
where they can afford it. A portion of the SRF funds may be set aside
for technical assistance, as I mentioned before, the cost of training
operators. And the States may reduce the monitoring requirements. There
is no point in testing constantly for a substance that never occurs in
a certain section of the country. Why make the small systems constantly
go through that monitoring for a contaminant that is not found in that
section of the nation, as I mentioned before?
When we brought this bill before the Senate it passed 99 to nothing.
The House, in many provisions, included our language word for word, for
example, in the standard setting. The standard setting is based upon
science and technology that I believe makes much more sense than the
existing situation. For some contaminants, this approach to standard
setting can impose large costs nationwide while producing only small
gains. So we believe the science approach that we provided will reduce
those large investments that have to be made.
So, I believe we have here an excellent piece of legislation. Again,
I congratulate my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from Rhode
Island his 8 minutes have expired.
Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Chair for notifying me. We will hear from
other Members of our side who will have an opportunity to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Montana.
Privilege Of The Floor
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jan
Harrington and Mike Burton, both fellows in Senator Bob Kerrey's
office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration
of the conference report on this subject.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I, like my good friend and chairman of the
committee, Senator Chafee, strongly support the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1996.
We all know that the Safe Drinking Water Act needs to be reformed. We
have heard all kinds of stories. They are largely true. We have had
problems in many of our cities, our large cities. We heard about
Milwaukee, Washington, DC, and the cryptosporidium problems, as well as
some problems in small communities.
It is basic, it is fundamental: Americans should be able to drink
their water and rest assured that the water they drink is safe, that
they will not get sick, whether they are in the comfort of their own
home or whether they are visiting the Nation's Capital or wherever they
might be in our country.
The current version of the Safe Drinking Water Act, is helpful in
this direction, but, in many respects, it produces more paperwork than
it does progress. It is my belief that this conference report helps
change that.
What does it do? First, it reforms the regulatory process. This is
very important. It makes it much more streamlined, and reduces redtape.
It cuts monitoring costs. This is extremely important. The monitoring
costs for some contaminants are extremely high, and Americans would be
amazed at how expensive it is.
The bill also creates a new revolving loan fund so communities will
have the resources to get the technology they need. It also requires
water systems to give the people they serve more information about the
quality of the drinking water the system provides. Consumers will have
more notice and more information. And the bill addresses operator
training. It is important to have operators who know what they are
doing.
Overall, it cuts redtape and, at the same time, increases the
protection of public health.
Senator Chafee has described some measures in detail. I agree with
his assessment. I think this bill is a solid compromise. In praising
it, I would like to emphasize two points.
First, as has been stated, this bill is especially important to rural
States, to small communities. In my State of Montana, we have over 900
separate drinking water systems. Almost all of them serve fewer than
10,000 people.
Some of the systems serve trailer parks and remote clusters of homes.
They are operated part-time by folks who are just trying to be good
neighbors. They are very small systems.
The current version of the law requires small drinking water systems
to install the same treatment technology as large urban water systems
that serve hundreds of thousands of people. In some cases, this doesn't
make sense. Small systems do not benefit from what economists call
``economies of scale.'' That is, they cannot spread their costs among a
large number of ratepayers. The same high cost of technology has to be
spread among fewer ratepayers, resulting in a much higher cost to the
ratepayers.
If we force smaller systems to use big-city technology, not only can
they not afford the cost, but they will go under. What will that mean?
That means people in the area have to revert to using unhealthy well
water, not water which is treated, but well water which is untreated.
This point was hammered home to me by the head of the Montana Rural
Water Association, Dan Keil. I will never forget meeting with Dan about
6 years ago. He told me about legitimate problems with the Safe
Drinking Water Act. We were in the Heritage Motel in Great Falls, MT.
He made a very deep impression upon me.
I know Dan Keil is very happy today, now that the Senate is finally,
6 or 7 years later, dealing with the problem that needed to be
addressed. At that time, he explained to me how impractical some of the
present requirements are. I looked into it, and I agreed with him, they
are impractical.
We are now dealing, I think, with most of those problems. One of the
most important issues is the variance provision in this conference
report. Here is how it works.
If a system has 10,000 people or fewer, they may request a variance
to install special small-system technology identified by EPA. That is
important. That means that a small system that cannot afford to comply
with current regulations through conventional treatment can instead
comply by installing affordable small-system technology.
The States review the variance to ensure the technology adequately
protects the public health. In those cases where the system serves
between 3,300 people and 10,000 people, the variance must be approved
by the EPA. That is going to help. It is going to help address the twin
objectives of protecting public health and using cost-efficient
technology.
Second, over the last few years, there has been a lot of talk about
reforming
[[Page S9487]]
our environmental laws. No doubt about it, although our laws are quite
good--they help make the water in our country cleaner and more pure and
the air we breathe more healthy--they need some reform. They are a bit
outdated.
One noteworthy provision in this bill is transferability. What does
that mean? Essentially, the provision allows a State to transfer
dollars from the revolving loan fund in the Clean Water Act to the new
revolving loan fund in the Safe Drinking Water Act. A State can loan
the funds to a community that can use those dollars to pay for
technology that it needs to address some of the problems in the
drinking water.
A State can do the opposite, too. They can transfer from the Safe
Drinking Water Act loan fund to the Clean Water Act loan fund. This
provides more flexibility to allow a State to meet its needs, or a
community to meet its needs. Washington, DC, is not passing something
on to the States that has been described in the past as a one size fits
all, view, but rather giving a lot more flexibility to States. This is
extremely important.
Another innovative provision is radon. Radon has been a vexing
problem because, the proposed radon standard for water is tighter than
the amount of radon that occurs in outdoor air.
Radon affects people in their homes. We have basically come up with a
multimedia. It allows States to set a lower standard for radon in
drinking water only if the State has an alternative indoor air program
that achieves just as much public health protection as the drinking
water standard would achieve.
In conclusion, Mr. President, no legislation is perfect. This one is
not perfect. It contains some flaws. It has a series of special
projects, commonly known as pork, which will draw resources away from
the new drinking water loan fund. I think those projects should not be
in the bill, but we could not get the bill passed, incredibly, without
some of them.
But it is a good bill nevertheless. We have made some progress. It is
going to help move the ball forward.
In closing, I want to acknowledge the leadership of the chairman of
the committee, Senator Chafee. I must say that all of us who have
worked with the chairman of our committee are very impressed with him.
He is basically a down-to-Earth, commonsense fellow. He calls them as
he sees them. He is very generous with his time, very generous with his
compliments and very generous with the people he is working with. In
addition, he keeps his eye on the ball; that is, moving the
environmental ball forward in a commonsense way.
It has been kind of tough the last couple of years. We have not
passed environmental legislation that is solid, commonsense and
balanced. Senator Chafee has done a good job to help advance this
legislation.
I also want to acknowledge the excellent work of the staff,
particularly Jimmie Powell. I don't know anybody who knows this issue
better than Jimmie, with the possible exception of my two staff, Jo-
Ellen Darcy and Mike Evans, who know it just as well. They have been
just terrific.
I am particularly appreciative of Jo-Ellen. When they were trying to
wrap this bill up 2 or 3 days ago and they wanted to quit, Jo-Ellen
said they were not going to leave until they wrapped it up that night.
They didn't leave, and they wrapped it up. That is a testament to Jo-
Ellen's hard work.
I pay particular thanks to Senator Kempthorne, chairman of the
subcommittee. Senator Kempthorne, like Senator Chafee, is a commonsense
fellow. Maybe that is because he is from a Western State like Montana.
Also, Senator Reid from Nevada. He is not out there to try to harm
anybody, does not have a political ax to grind. He is trying to get the
job done in a very balanced way.
I see Senator Boxer on the floor. There is nobody more tenacious and
hard working and a greater champion for environmental causes. And in
the case, she was particularly strong on the right-to-know provision,
which was her brainchild. I know that Senator Boxer is very pleased we
included that provision in the conference report.
People worked hard on this. I am very grateful for the time and
effort they put into it. I yield the floor.
Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Rhode
Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished Senator
from Montana for his very generous comments about the work I have done
and others and our staff. And I want to join him in his salute to Jo-
Ellen Darcy and Mike Evans and the others on his staff who really were
tremendous.
I now yield 10 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee, the person who took this on, mastered it, pushed it
forward. And the bill we have before us is really, to a great extent,
the bill that Senator Kempthorne brought from his committee that passed
in this Senate 99 to 0. So if kudos are deserved around here, they are
deserved by Senator Kempthorne.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Thank you very much.
May I say how much I appreciate those remarks by the chairman of the
Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee.
To paraphrase Samuel Taylor Cole- ridge: Water, water, everywhere,
and with the passage of this Safe Drinking Water Act conference report,
we'll be able to drink every drop.
Just over 9 months ago, in a unanimous, bipartisan vote of 99 to 0,
we passed the bill that I introduced along with Senators Chafee,
Baucus, and Reid to reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water Act.
I will say right here that without that sort of partnership with
those Senators, we would not be here today. Our bill improved public
health, gave States and local governments the flexibility that they
need to target their scarce resources on on high priority health risks,
and laid the foundation for a safe and affordable drinking water supply
into the 21st century.
Following the efforts of the Senate, the House of Representatives
last month passed their safe drinking water bill, passed largely on the
work that was accomplished here in the U.S. Senate.
Today we have the opportunity to complete the process and approve the
conference report on the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996.
Our job today is a significant one because, surely, there is nothing
more important than the health of our families and friends, and in
large measure, that is exactly what is riding on this legislation. When
you think about it, drinking water is really the only product or
service that communities provide that directly affects the health and
well-being of every person every day. Unfortunately, the current law
often makes it unnecessarily difficult and costly for many communities
to provide safe and affordable drinking water.
During the negotiations on the Unfunded Mandates Act, I met with
executive committee members of the National Governors' Association to
discuss our strategy for passage of that bill. Those Governors told me
that after passage of the unfunded mandates legislation, their priority
would then turn to fixing the current Safe Drinking Water Act. And so
we moved and made that our No. 1 priority after passage of the Unfunded
Mandates Act.
I began the process determining that we should have three goals. We
needed to write a law that first and foremost would protect and improve
public health, and second, we wanted to write a law that would work,
one that would put substance and content over bureaucracy for
bureaucracy's sake, and, finally, we needed to write a law that would
reduce Federal unfunded mandates.
The bill that we are voting on today achieves those three goals. It
was written with the advice of many public health experts, State and
local government officials, and water providers. And I listened to what
they had to say. So this bill reflects their concerns and their
recommendations as to how to improve the way the drinking water is
regulated.
When I began working on this legislation, I determined that there
were key factors that must be incorporated. First, we must protect
public health.
[[Page S9488]]
And we did. We eliminated the arbitrary requirement that the
Administrator of EPA regulate 25 new contaminants every 3 years.
Instead, the administrator is given the authority and flexibility to
target her regulatory resources on those contaminants that are actually
present in drinking water and that, based on the best available, peer
reviewed science, are found to pose a real health risk to humans.
For the first time, we provided tens of millions of dollars for
important health effects research, including research on the health
effects on cryptosporidium, arsenic, and disinfectants, and their
potential effect on other sensitive subpopulations, like children,
pregnant women, and the elderly.
I said we would give States and local governments greater flexibility
to tailor Federal requirements to maximize their resources and meet
their specific needs. And we did.
The bill also gives States the sole authority to design and implement
capacity development strategies to ensure that drinking water systems
have the financial, technical and managerial resources they need to
comply with this law. Under the old regulatory approach, we would have
required States to adopt a strategy and submit it to EPA for review and
approval. But we do not do that here. Once a State adopts a capacity
development strategy, EPA has no authority under this law to second-
guess it or penalize the State by withholding Federal funds.
The bill also recognizes that in many cases it is easier and more
cost-effective to prevent contaminants from getting into source water
for a drinking water system, rather than to try to remove them by
regulation after they are in the system. This bill encourages States to
develop source water protection partnerships between community water
systems and upstream stakeholders to anticipate and solve source water
problems before they occur. These are voluntary, incentive-based
partnerships.
Our experience in my home State of Idaho has repeatedly demonstrated
these kinds of programs work, and work well. Locally driven solutions
that stakeholders themselves develop in a nonregulatory, nonadversarial
setting usually achieve a far greater level of protection than could
otherwise be gained through mandatory restrictions on land use or other
Federal regulations. I fully expect that these voluntary source water
partnership programs will quickly become a valuable tool for States and
local government to improve public health, target local risks, and
maximize resources.
I said that we would make this law work for small and rural systems.
And we did.
We allow States to modify expensive monitoring requirements for small
systems so that they do not have to spend their very limited resources
testing for contaminants that are not detected in their drinking water.
In many communities in Idaho, this new flexibility alone could save
systems hundreds of thousands of dollars every year.
I said that we would reduce unfunded mandates. And we did.
First of all, our bill reduces the number of mandates that are
imposed on States and local governments under the current law. Then,
significantly, we commit substantial Federal resources to assure that
the Nation's drinking water supply is safe.
The Congressional Budget Office has reviewed our bill as is now
required under the Unfunded Mandates Act, and just yesterday confirmed
that this legislation does not impose unfunded mandates. It stated,
``the bill would change the Federal drinking water program in ways that
would lower the costs to public water systems of complying with
existing and future requirements. On balance, CBO estimates that the
bill would likely result in significant net savings to State and local
governments.''
Mr. President, in summary, I just say, for the first time ever, we
are providing the funds to the States and communities so that they can
deal effectively with their water systems. For the first time ever, we
are providing for source water protection. For the first time ever, we
are prioritizing those areas that truly are contaminants, and going
after those.
But I particularly want to thank my colleagues, Senator Chafee, who
is the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, for his
leadership and efforts on this bill, combined with those of Senator Max
Baucus of Montana, who was the chairman in the previous Congress, and
Senator Harry Reid, who is the ranking member on the Senate
subcommittee we serve on. Again, without that sort of partnership,
bipartisan partnership, we would not be here. I also want to
acknowledge Senator Bob Kerrey who is one of first ones that really
came forward and said, let us make this work. And it did work.
I also want to thank majority leader Trent Lott for the help and
encouragement he provided during the conference to help get this bill
completed.
I would like to thank my staff for their hard work and dedication to
the cause. To Buzz Fawcett and to Ann Klee. They are truly dedicated
and extremely talented individuals. I want to thank Jimmie Powell from
Senator Chafee's staff. Jimmie's dedication to the Safe Drinking Water
Act and his knowledge of the law and the facts made him invaluable to
the process. Every State, city, and rural water district in America can
say thank you.
I would like to thank Jo-Ellen Darcy and Mike Evans and Ann Loomis
and Scott Slesinger, Mike Smith, Gregory Daines, and Stephanie Daigle,
Steve Shimberg, and Tom Sliter.
The Senate conferees remained united throughout the conference. And
it was due to the uncommon abilities and the good humor of all the
people that I have just named that it was successful.
Finally, I would like to thank, on a personal note, my wife Patricia
and my children Heather and Jeff who know about the sacrifice that goes
into these sorts of efforts: The long hours that keep you from being
home, as you try to make something positive happen. It is the families
that I think really offer the sacrifice. But in this case I believe it
is worth it, because for all the kids of this country, it is safer
drinking water. We have done our job. We stepped up to the challenge
and we accomplished it.
Again, I thank the chairman and the ranking member. I thank all
Members of this Senate--99 to 0--for the tremendous bipartisan support.
This Congress is on record. We have positive environmental legislation
that is good public health and good for this blessed environment.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I yield now several minutes to the Senator
from Virginia who is the second ranking member on the committee. He has
worked very hard on this bill, and he is unable to be here long, so I
ask that he might proceed.
Mr. WARNER. I compliment the managers of this bill and the chairman
of the subcommittee. Through their effective leadership in guiding this
conference, we are able to return to the Senate an exemplary bill. I
was happy to be a part of the conference.
I am particularly pleased that this bill favorably addresses the
needs of small systems and establishes a new pollution prevention
approach under the source water partnership program.
Mr. President, this conference report clearly demonstrates that we
can produce legislation that strengthens our protection of public
health, provides relief from excessive Federal regulations and offers
more streamlined requirements for local drinking water systems to
comply with the law.
Our foremost priority has always been to give consumers confidence
that the water that comes from the tap is safe to drink. This bill
fulfills that priority.
The cornerstone of this bill is the establishment of the State
Revolving Loan program. Funds will be provided to States to make either
loans or grants to assist communities with the construction of
treatment facilities necessary to meet the Federal standards. These
funds are critically needed by our small systems who often don't have a
large rate base to support the construction of new treatment plants.
Also during our conference discussions, much attention was focused on
the need to require local drinking water systems to provide all of
their customers with Consumer Confidence Reports. These reports are to
inform customers of the content of their drinking water. It needs to be
made clear that the Senate bill mandated that water systems immediately
notify, within 24 hours, their customers whenever a contaminant exceeds
a Federal health based standard. This is a
[[Page S9489]]
significant improvement from current law.
I did have concerns about proposals during the Senate debate to
expand this requirement on our drinking water systems. I did not want
this reporting to unduly alarm our citizens about the presence of
contaminants in drinking water. The conference report includes a
provision on Consumer Confidence Reports, which I strongly support
because it addresses my previous concerns in several ways. Most
importantly, it requires the reports to include a plainly worded
explanation of the contaminants that are found and of the health risks
that may result from violating the Federal standard.
It is important to make the distinction that detecting a chemical in
drinking water, many which occur naturally at very low levels, is much
different than violating a Federal standard. Federal standards are set
at exposure levels which EPA determines are safe and will not adversely
affect public health. The modification in the conference report ensures
that the public will be fully informed about the meaning of data and
sampling collected by a local water system.
The conference report also ensures that the local water systems have
the trained personnel necessary to effectively run a treatment plant.
Virginia already requires an effective operator certification program
and the report requires all States to implement a training program for
water system operators. I support fully this provision because with
relief from the current monitoring requirements, we must be sure that
treatment plants are operated in a sound an efficient manner and that
personnel have the expertise to respond to unforeseen problems.
Throughout the committee's deliberations on revising the Safe
Drinking Water Act, over the past 4 years, we have learned that small
systems are especially burdened by the current regulatory program.
Small systems, those serving less than 10,000 persons, represent over
80 percent of the public water systems in this country. Monitoring
requirements, often the most expensive activity undertaken by water
systems, installation of treatment technologies, and funding
constraints have all overburdened our small systems and their capacity
to meet the stringent requirements of the current law.
The Congress has responded to these calls for help and this bill
holds great promise for assisting small systems. The revolving loan
fund, alternative technologies that are affordable, monitoring relief
and ensuring that operators are qualified to run treatment plans will
greatly enable our small water systems to deliver drinking water that
is safe for our citizens.
Mr. President, the Source Water Protection Partnership Program is a
new step in pollution prevention. Having worked on this approach for
several years, I am pleased that the conference contains the Senate
provision. With a modest investment of funds, source water partnerships
will prevent problems before they occur. The positive result will be
that water quality is improved and communities are relieved from
building expensive treatment systems.
A great deal of work went into the development of this approach and I
must commend the agricultural community for their cooperative working
relationship over the years. Our citizens involved in agriculture today
are responsible stewards of our land and water. They want to be
involved in a voluntary, solution based approach to these problems. I
know from the great progress we have made under the Chesapeake Bay
program that this approach can be extremely effective on a national
level.
Another issue of great concern to me has been the water quality
problems of the Washington Aqueduct and the District of Columbia's
water distribution system.
Since the Environmental Protection Agency's boil-water order in
December 1993, I have been working to resolve the long-term financial
constraints of the system. Owned by the Federal Government, the
Washington Aqueduct provides essentially a local service--municipal
water supply--to the District of Columbia and the Virginia
jurisdictions of Arlington and Falls Church.
Currently, the system's capital improvements are financed on a pay-
as-you-go basis where the customers must pay up front the full cost of
any construction project.
While user fees are collected for the District of Columbia's Water
and Sewer Enterprise Fund, these resources finance the system's annual
operating costs and cannot begin to meet the obligations of the
system's extensive capital improvement needs.
The Conference Report provides for a reasonable approach to this
problem by providing authority for the Corps to borrow funds from the
Treasury for the next three years. These funds will be used to continue
the improvements of the system as required by the Environmental
Protection Agency. Within this 3 year period, the Corps and the
customers are to work together to determine a final resolution of the
ownership of the Aqueduct. The Corps is authorized to transfer the
Aqueduct to a new or existing entity with the approval of a majority of
the customers. I would have preferred that all the customers agree to
the transfer, but that was not the view of my House colleagues. It is
my very strong hope that the Corps and the customers will make every
effort to reach consensus on this matter before the borrowing period
expires.
It is critical that we resolve this matter because if no solution is
reached at the end of 3 years then we return to the status quo. That is
continued Corps ownership with no ability to provide long-term
financing of the necessary improvements. This would be tragic for our
rate payers who would suffer from extreme rate spikes to finance the
remaining work on the Aqueduct.
Mr. President, I know that my colleagues expect this matter to be
resolved within the next few years and I pledge to remain actively
involved in this effort to see that there is a successful conclusion.
In closing, no legislation of this magnitude and in this short time
frame can be completed without talented and dedicated professionals. I
want to recognize and thank the staff of the Environment and Public
Works Committee, Jimmie Powell, Jo-Ellen Darcy, and Mike Evans, and the
staff for Senator Kempthorne, Ann Klee and W.H. Fawcett.
Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I take this moment to pay particular
tribute to the Senator from Virginia for the work he did in connection
with providing funding for the city of Washington aqueduct. It
supplies, obviously, all the residents of Washington plus some
residents of northern Virginia. But for the attention and diligence of
the Senator from Virginia in connection with this matter, we would not
have dealt with it in the fashion we did.
I believe, as a result of the efforts of Senator Warner, the problems
of the Washington water supply system will be solved in the not too
distant future. I pay tribute to what the Senator has done.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished chairman for his kind remarks
and also his strong cooperation, together with the ranking member, in
making possible the inclusion of this provision in this important piece
of legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 9 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
I know no one who fights harder for the environment, who is more
tenacious with a greater bulldog tenacity than the Senator from New
Jersey.
That is meant as very high praise from me.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Being a bulldog is not necessarily the kind of pet
you want around the house, but it is not bad when it comes to a battle.
Mr. President, I rise to express my satisfaction with the conference
report and hope that our colleagues will support it. The final bill
will enhance both the quality of our drinking water and America's
confidence in its safety.
Americans are concerned about the quality of their drinking water.
The sale of bottled water and water filters is skyrocketing. Fewer
people believe that the water out of their taps is clean and safe.
Their fears are not illusionary. Look at Milwaukee or Philadelphia.
Washington, the Nation's Capital has repeatedly had to tell residents
to boil their water.
[[Page S9490]]
Something had to be done. I believe the bill we crafted will enhance
both quality and confidence.
This was not an easy conference, as I am sure my colleagues will
agree. Both bills resulted, from a set of delicate compromises, the
House bill and the Senate bill. Any changes could raise significant
opposition. I am happy the conferees were able to hammer out a draft
which I believe is superior to either of the individual versions of the
Senate or the House.
I will elaborate on a few of the provisions. Unlike the Senate bill,
the House version would have weakened the rights of citizens to sue for
violations of the water standard, even when the suits were needed to
ensure public safety. The House bill also failed to give States the
flexibility to transfer money from the sewage treatment loan revolving
fund to the drinking water fund and vice versa. This could delay high
priority projects and would prove to be wasteful. I am glad the Senate
version prevailed on that issue, protecting the rights of the citizens
and giving flexibility to the States.
At the same time, there is much in the House bill that is, in my
view, superior to the Senate version. For example, I fully support the
Boxer right-to-know amendment. As the author of a similar law that
provides information about toxic releases, I think this kind of
legislation is critical. Unfortunately, the amendment was not approved
by the Senate, but the conference agreement includes provisions for a
right-to-know law.
Mr. President, letting people know what is in their water supply is
not just common sense, it is common decency. The right-to-know
provision provides consumers with information on contaminants that have
been detected in their water, even if the levels do not violate EPA or
State standards. Since all water includes some contaminants, the
conference language also provides for information on the specific
impact of those contaminants.
I am disappointed, however, that these provisions fail to provide
similar requirements for bottled water. Many consumers buy bottled
water because they think it is cleaner than tap water. They have a
right to know if that is true, and which pollutants, if any, remain in
the bottles.
Several years ago, Mr. President, the FDA published regulations to
require the bottled water industry to regularly monitor its products
for contaminants. The industry fought these provisions and the FDA
relented. That concerned me. A study by the State of Kansas showed 15
percent of the bottled water tested had cancer-causing contaminants at
higher levels than allowed by EPA.
I am disappointed the conference report was watered down in this
area. At least it does provide for a Federal Food and Drug
Administration study on the feasibility of such a requirement. I expect
the FDA will find it feasible to require the bottled water industry to
provide the same information which we are requiring of suppliers of tap
water to communities of 500 or above. After all, if that provision is
not too burdensome for public water providers, it cannot be too
burdensome for the bottled water industry.
However, if the FDA does not appreciate the importance of providing
this information to the public, I will not hesitate to bring up
legislation to bring bottled water under the authority of the Safe
Drinking Water Act.
I also urge consumer groups to conduct tests on some bottled water
sold in their areas and to prepare consumer confidence reports for the
general public. This, at least, will educate consumers until proper
provisions and safeguards are in place.
In addition to water quality, the controversial part of the
legislation dealt with radon. I am pleased the conference came out with
a provision that will help lower the risk from radon exposure to a
greater degree than either the House or the Senate bill would have. Mr.
President, radon is a naturally occurring radioactive contaminant that
causes lung cancer by inhalation.
In New Jersey, radon exposure is believed to cause more lung cancer,
more than any other environmental cause. That is why I sponsored the
Indoor Radon Abatement Act in 1988. The conference report builds on
that act by allowing States to implement programs that will decrease
radon in the air, as an alternative to meeting the standard for radon
in drinking water. A State can choose this option only if the proposed
indoor air program provides greater public health benefits in complying
with the drinking water standard. Since radon is dangerous only when
inhaled, this measure would significantly enhance efforts to reduce
this deadly contaminant.
Last, Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to the
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee,
the chairman of the Drinking Water, Fisheries and Wildlife
Subcommittee, Senator Kempthorne, the ranking Democrat, Senator Baucus,
in the committee and Senator Reid in the subcommittee. I also want to
express my thanks to the staff for their hard work, Jimmy Powell, Jo-
Ellen Darcy, Michael Evans from the Committee on Environment and Public
Works, and W.H. Fawcett, representing Senator Kempthorne.
In particular, I congratulate my staff person, Scott Slesinger, for
his hard and diligent work. He made it possible for me to stay totally
informed as to what was going on and to make sure that our views were
included in any of the comments that we finally sought. Without his
time and effort, this would have been a much more difficult assignment
for me. I am happy we have the bill we have.
Mr. CHAFEE. I yield the distinguished Senator from Wyoming 4 minutes.
I want to say the Senator comes from a State with lots of small
communities with small waterworks and he has been particularly vigilant
in seeing that those small communities were protected not only in
safety but also in the training of their operators who paid a lot of
the attention to the requirements of small communities. Senator Thomas.
Mr. THOMAS. I rise in strong support of the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1996. We all travel through our States extensively, and
the topic of unnecessary regulation in the environmental areas comes up
as often as any other topic when I hold meetings in Wyoming. Wyoming
folks are tired of the top-down approach mandating expensive
regulations for questionable benefits.
This bill says we can do a better job of protecting public health,
and at the same time, inject common sense into the process. This bill
helps State and local communities meet Federal standards by creating a
Federal grant program to capitalize State revolving loan funds for
drinking water treatment.
The mandate that 25 new contaminants are regulated every 3 years,
whether at risk of human health or not is repealed. Finally, EPA will
be able to prioritize efforts and cost benefits are inserted into the
process. The State role is increased. Systems will be able to focus
their monitoring efforts on those contaminants that actually occur in
the systems.
Most importantly for my State, small communities will finally be
given special consideration and assistance under the bill. States can
grant variances for systems that serve people under 3,300. That is 90
percent of the water systems in Wyoming. With EPA approval that number
goes up to 10,000. Small systems qualify for monitoring relief.
There are a few groups that will, once again, find an excuse to
oppose this legislation, just as they did when it passed the Senate 99
to 0. I agree with them, this bill is not perfect. For instance, I am
skeptical of the so-called consumer confidence report. These reports
will not build confidence, in my judgment. They will simply create
confusion. They will simply create confusion. I call them consumer
confusion reports, at a cost of about $20 million per year. CBO says
that, on balance, this bill will save local water systems in State and
local governments millions of dollars. That is good news to the
taxpayers.
This bill includes several provisions to ensure that Wyoming, the
only nonprimacy State, can take full advantage of the benefits of this
bill. It makes sense, it furthers the protection of human health and
enjoys widespread bipartisan support. S. 1316 is a bill the President
can support, he should support it without reservation, and we should
get it on his desk quickly.
Mr. President, this is truly historic legislation and I was pleased
to have
[[Page S9491]]
the opportunity to play a part in its development as a member of the
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works as well as the
conference committee that crafted the compromise legislation before us
today.
This legislation is historic for both what it does, and what it does
not do. What this bill does is trust folks in the states and local
communities to protect their citizens, increases flexibility to meet
standards, injects common sense into the regulatory process, allows the
Environmental Protection Agency to set priorities and focus limited
resources on the biggest health threats, and finally recognizes that
small communities in Wyoming face unique challenges and need different
strategies to meet standards than New York City does. What this bill
does not do is impose expensive unfunded mandates on localities, rely
on the Washington knows best command and control method of regulation
or blindly force regulation for regulation sake without addressing the
costs and benefits. This is a massive shift in the way we approach
environmental regulation that allows us to increase environmental
protection while reducing unnecessary costs to the regulated community,
and I hope it becomes a model for other statutes that desperately need
reform.
I am particularly pleased with the approach this bill takes in
helping small public water systems comply with the standards set by the
Safe Drinking Water Act. As you know, Mr. President, small communities
face unique challenges not found in large cities. These small systems,
by their very nature, don't have the economies of scale found in large
cities. Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency has always
set standards and determined affordable technologies based on water
systems of 100,000 or more. What may be affordable for a system of this
size is obviously prohibitive in Pinedale, WY. There are several
provisions in this conference report that will help small systems
affordably comply with the standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act and
continue to protect the health of their citizens.
The vast majority of public water systems serve small cities. In my
home State of Wyoming, 90 percent of our public water systems serve
fewer than 3,300 people. This bill gives States the authority to grant
variances from Federal standards for systems serving up to 3,300
people, and for systems serving up to 10,000 people with the approval
of the Environmental Protection Agency. Small systems are given
flexibility to meet the new consumer confidence reporting requirements
contained in this bill. Under this bill, small systems can receive
relief from monitoring requirements that today require them to monitor
for contaminants that don't even occur in their water. This bill
authorizes $15 million per year to provide technical assistance to
small public water systems and up to $30 million per year to pay the
cost of mandated operator training for small systems. Finally, this
bill creates a grant program for at least five university programs to
support research, training and technical assistance with respect to
problems experienced by small systems. These small public water systems
technology assistance centers will provide significant assistance to
State and local governments in the development of programs to address
special concerns relating to the water systems of rural communities and
native Americans. These centers will be particularly important to
states, like Wyoming, with relatively low population density that cover
very large geographic areas. Coordination of research, training,
technical assistance and outreach efforts through these centers will
play an important information role for State and local governments. It
should be noted, Mr. President, that the Water Resource
Research Institutes located at the land grant university in each of the
50 States, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico,
and Guam, can provide similar information on rural water system
treatment technologies, development of alternate supplies, and training
to enable compliance with State and Federal regulations. I hope the
Environmental Protection Agency will better utilize these institutes as
part of its drinking water programs.
In addition to the very important accommodations made for small
systems in this bill, important changes were made throughout the
drinking water program. I am extremely pleased about the increased
flexibility that the legislation brings to the standard setting process
under the act. This legislation, with its emphasis on using the best
available scientific methodology for standard setting, facilitates
efforts to bring more rationality to the process. The EPA has already
started down this road with its risk characterization policy and its
carcinogen risk assessment guidelines and I think our approach in this
legislation will build on that effort, hopefully leading to the
reevaluation of the standards for a number of substances. I am also
pleased that States retain ultimate discretion in this bill over the
content of programs that implement a capacity development strategy, and
that existing State operator training programs will be allowed to
continue unchanged under this legislation.
Mr. President, as with any compromise, this bill is not perfect. This
bill truly is a compromise, reflecting hours of negotiations between
Republicans and Democrats here in the Senate, then days of hard work
and negotiations between the House and Senate. In order to move forward
with this bill, and the significant benefits that go with it, it became
necessary to include some provisions that I oppose. For instance, I
strongly believe the provision in this bill that requires so-called
consumer confidence reports is misguided, will cost local water systems
from $15 to $20 million per year and will not result in consumer
confidence, but instead will confuse consumers and destroy their
confidence in their local water supply. Fortunately, the Senate was
able to make clear that these reports should contain language that will
tell consumers that the presence of trace elements of contaminants are
in all drinking water, including bottled water, and this does not
create a health hazard. We were also able to increase flexibility for
small systems to meet this mandate.
Despite some reservations, I strongly support this bill. We create a
State revolving loan fund for drinking water infrastructure under this
bill, to help local communities pay for needed improvements to their
water supply. We increase flexibility and reduce costs to local
communities. The Congressional Budget Office says this bill will:
* * * change the federal drinking water program in ways
that would lower the costs to public water systems of
complying with existing and future requirements. On balance,
CBO estimates that the bill would likely result in
significant net savings to state and local governments.
Finally, the bill would extend the authorization of certain
existing appropriations and would authorize the appropriation
of additional federal funds to help state and local
governments meet compliance costs.
Finally, this bill recognizes the unique situation of the State of
Wyoming. Mr. President, Wyoming is the only State which does not have
primacy over the Safe Drinking Water Act. Chairman Chafee, Senator
Kempthorne, and Senator Baucus worked with me to ensure that the
citizens of Wyoming would be able to take full advantage of the
benefits of this legislation, despite the fact we don't have primacy.
The State of Wyoming will receive a minimum allocation from the new
loan fund and will be able to apply for monitoring relief and
variances. Most importantly to me, the State of Wyoming will be able to
continue their current operator training and certification program. We
are very proud of that program, Mr. President, and it is fitting that
States continue to be allowed to structure their own programs and not
be forced to follow an EPA-directed structure, as the House bill would
have required.
Mr. President, many people deserve credit for passage of this
legislation. I want to thank Senators Chafee, Kempthorne, Baucus, and
Reid for their leadership. This bill would not have been possible
without their hard work, and that of their staffs. Senator Kempthorne
in particular took some unfair hits over the last few weeks. Well
financed Washington-based environmental extremists attacked Senator
Kempthorne's integrity and questioned his resolve to get this bill
done. Mr. President, these attacks were outrageous, designed to prevent
us from passing this important legislation and to build the coffers of
the environmental extremists. There is no excuse
[[Page S9492]]
for this behavior and I want to make it clear that this bill will be
signed into law thanks to Senator Kempthorne and despite the
irresponsible behavior of a few groups who would rather scare the
American people with distortions than see positive reform to
environmental laws. That's unfortunate, but we overcame their
objections to the Senate bill and approved it 99 to 0, and we should do
the same today.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator recognizes the Senator from
California.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President. I add my voice in support of
this bill. I want to thank, particularly, the chairman of the
committee, Senator Chafee, the ranking member, Senator Baucus, and
Senators Kempthorne, Reid, and the other members of the committee, who
worked so hard. And I can say, on behalf of myself and my wonderful
staff, Linda Delgado, that working with the staffs of the chairman and
the ranking member has just been a joy to us.
Of course, I have some very special feelings about passage of this
bill today, because an amendment that I worked very hard to get through
this U.S. Senate, the consumer right to know amendment, has been
adopted by the conference. The Senator from Wyoming didn't think it was
a particularly good amendment, but I have to say that when one looks at
what we are facing--I pick up this glass of water to drink what may be
Washington, DC, water--and I think it is important that those of us who
drink this water, or tap water from anywhere in this country, know what
contaminants are in our drinking water.
I am very proud of this particular bill because, first of all, we won
on the issue of consumer confidence reports. I disagree with my friend
from Wyoming, because he thinks they will confuse people. I think
people are smarter than that. I have always believed in giving people
information. The way this information is portrayed will be clear and
simple, and I think it will be easy to understand. If it is not, it can
be revised so that it is even easier.
So I am extremely proud that we will require getting consumer
confidence reports out to people, so they will know what is in the
water they ingest, the water that is their lifeline. It seems to me a
very important thing.
I have to say that the conference and the House deserve a lot of
credit, but we built on the 40 votes we got here in the U.S. Senate. I
want to say to all my colleagues who supported the Boxer amendment, my
deepest thanks, because had we only gotten a few votes, we may not have
gotten the agreement of our chair and our ranking member. Our chair and
our ranking member knew there was support for the concept. I think the
difficulty arose in the details of the amendment.
The other part of this bill that gives me great pride deals with the
section on sensitive subpopulations. We attached it to the safe
drinking water bill in the last Congress and in this Congress. The
language in this bill requires that EPA drinking water standards be set
at levels that take into account the special vulnerability of our
children, our infants, our pregnant women, our elderly, the chronically
ill, and other groups that are at substantially higher risk than the
average healthy adult. The truth of the matter is that vulnerable
populations are much weaker than a 165-pound man. The way we have set
the standard throughout history has been for that very healthy, strong
man. A little child, or someone who is ill, or an elderly person may be
negatively affected by water that would not hurt a healthy person.
Mr. President, this is an important milestone, in my opinion, because
it seems to me that we ought to do this on every bill that impacts the
health of our people. We should remember the children, the pregnant
women, the frail elderly, the ill. They cannot afford to hire lobbyists
to come into the Halls of Congress to knock on my door or your door,
Mr. President, and fight for their health and safety. They simply
cannot do it. Little babies cannot do it. They count on us to protect
them. In this bill, we are doing that. We are taking into account their
special needs.
So, today, I am very happy. In closing, I want to mention two other
issues that relate to this bill, one of which is particularly important
because the South Tahoe Public Utility District needs urgent help in
replacing its wastewater export pipeline system, which protects and
preserves the water quality in that most magnificent of all lakes, Lake
Tahoe. We were able, thanks to the chairman and the ranking member, to
list this as a project that should be considered by the Administrator
of EPA, should there be sufficient funds. I hope, Mr. President, that
the EPA Administrator will recognize the beauty and the vulnerability
and the national gift that Lake Tahoe is, and that we will be able to
help them fix their problem.
On the disappointment side, I don't have many. The chairman and the
ranking member were very helpful in getting authorization in this bill
for the Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy, which
is a consortium of universities in Mexico, California, Arizona, New
Mexico, and other States, which is going to look into the serious
pollution problems we have at our border region with Mexico. We had the
authorization, but the Science Committee in the House asserted its
jurisdiction and, unfortunately, removed this provision. I look forward
to working with my colleagues in the House from the San Diego area to
resolve this problem.
To my chairman and my ranking member, let me say that a Senator could
not be more blessed than to be able to work with Senators like you and
staffs like the staffs that you have. I hope we can work together for
many more years.
As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee I want to
commend Senator Chafee, Senator Baucus, Senator Kempthorne, and Senator
Reid for their extraordinary effort on this bill.
The safe drinking water bill we are passing today, is a significant
step forward in helping to ensure that one of the most fundamental
needs of any society--safe drinking water--is available to all
Americans.
This bill will lead to the crafting of a regulatory program to meet
this goal at the lowest possible cost and with the most flexibility
feasible for the thousands of local water supply systems.
This bill makes very significant progress in the protection of public
health. It effectively addresses legitimate concerns about overly
burdensome regulation and lack of funding. And it establishes the
critically important State revolving loan fund to help States and
municipalities comply with Federal law.
Mr. President I want to highlight two specific items included in this
bill which I worked very hard to achieve.
As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I have for
years worked to protect children and other sensitive subpopulations
from contaminants in drinking water. I am therefore very pleased that
this bill includes language that reflects the amendment I successfully
attached to the safe drinking water bill in the last Congress, and
worked to incorporate into the bill this Congress. The language in this
bill requires that EPA drinking water standards be set at levels that
take into account the special vulnerability of our children, our
infants, pregnant women, our elderly, the chronically ill, and other
groups that are at substantially higher risk than the average healthy
adult. This is a very important step forward.
I am also pleased that this bill incorporates a strong version of the
consumer confidence reports amendment that Senator Daschle and I
offered during Senate consideration of the bill. This is especially
important in light of continued reports that many Americans are worried
about getting sick from tap water contaminants.
The new consumer confidence reports requirement means that consumers
will once a year get a report from the water company serving their
neighborhood, about the source, the quality, and the safety of their
drinking water.
The information provided in the report will be simple and
straightforward.
Consumers have a right to be informed at least once a year about the
levels of contaminants found in their drinking water. These consumer
confidence reports will empower consumers to take precautionary
measures to
[[Page S9493]]
protect themselves and the most vulnerable members of their family,
such as a grandparent or a young child, for example, by boiling water
or installing special filters.
It is a pleasure Mr. President, to see this conference report pass
today.
In closing I would like to briefly mention two other issues:
I am pleased that the South Tahoe Public Utility District waste water
export system project was included on the list of special projects to
be considered by the Administrator of EPA if there are sufficient
funds.
The South Tahoe Public Utility District needs urgent help in
replacing its export pipeline system which protects and preserves the
water quality in Lake Tahoe. The export pipeline transports reclaimed
water from the wastewater treatment plant in South Tahoe out of the
Lake Tahoe basin to a nearby reservoir where the reclaimed water is
stored and later used for irrigation and other purposes.
The existing pipeline is reaching the end of its useful life and must
be replaced quickly if we are to avoid the possibility of a
catastrophic spill resulting in serious environmental harm to Lake
Tahoe. Several serious leaks have already occurred over the last 2
years, and the risk of a rupture increases the longer if takes to
complete the replacement project.
The local community has raised $10 million towards replacement of the
pipeline, but a total of $30 million will be needed. The local
community is already paying sewer rates substantially higher than the
average in California. If the pipeline is to be replaced in a timely
manner, $10 million in Federal assistance is needed. While the local
community might be able to pay for the pipeline replacement over the
long term by enduring high utility rates, it will not get the job done
as quickly as it could be done with Federal assistance. Such Federal
assistance would enable the South Tahoe Public Utility District to
complete the project in a more expeditious manner, reducing the chances
of a large leak with serious environmental consequences for the lake.
Last, I would like to mention my disappointment that authorization
for the Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy [SCERP],
which was included in the Senate-passed bill, was not included in the
final conferenced bill.
SCERP is a consortium of American and Mexican universities that works
to address environmental problems along the United States-Mexican
border including but not limited to air quality, water quality, and
hazardous materials. SCERP's members include San Diego State
university, New Mexico State University, University of Utah, University
of Texas-El Paso, and Arizona State University. SCERP had its origins
in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which authorized the
establishment of an entity to research air and water quality and other
environmental problems in the border region. Although SCERP is not
specifically authorized, it has been funded through congressional
appropriations for the last 5 years in fulfillment of the Clean Air Act
mandate.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the distinguished Senator from California for her
very kind remarks. We express our appreciation to her.
Mr. President, I will yield soon 3 minutes to the Senator from New
Hampshire, Senator Smith. But before doing so, I want to say that
Senator Smith has been deeply involved with this Safe Drinking Water
Act from the beginning. He worked very closely with the authors of it
and particularly was concerned about the small communities. There are
two things he sought for these small communities. One is that they have
safe drinking water and, two, that they have it at an affordable price.
I pay tribute to the work Senator Smith did in reflecting the views of
his constituents in New Hampshire. I give him sincere praise for his
assistance.
I yield to Senator Smith.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I thank the chairman, Senator Chafee, for
his very kind remarks. It has been a pleasure to work with Chairman
Chafee on not only this issue, but Superfund and other environmental
issues throughout the last 2 years--actually, longer, but 2 years under
his chairmanship.
I also thank Senator Baucus for his good work on this. I compliment
Senator Kempthorne, who has done an outstanding job in shepherding this
legislation to this point.
Everyone wants clean, safe water for drinking and bathing. But the
ability to provide this necessary commodity at an affordable price has
been a real challenge in recent years. I think we have gotten to this
point because of the numerous problems encountered with the 1986 act.
Many local governments and drinking water systems around the country,
some of which are in New Hampshire as well as other States, have been
struggling to comply with this long list of regulations while
maintaining reasonable water rates. The legislation before us will help
to address this problem.
The folks who live in these communities do not want to drink dirty
water, but they want to be able to do what they have to do and have the
reasonable opportunity to do it.
So when we talk about the issue of unfunded Federal mandates, the
Safe Drinking Water Act is regarded by State and local governments as
the king of those unfunded mandates. So to address it, the bill now
authorizes $1 billion a year in a Federal grant to establish State
revolving loan funds. This is the first time for this. These funds will
be allocated to the States on an annual basis, which can then be loaned
or granted to municipalities for drinking water projects. There are two
provisions of this program that I believe deserve special recognition:
First, the States can use up to 30 percent of the SRF to provide
direct grants to the most advantaged communities.
And, second, States can transfer funds between this new drinking
water SRF and the existing wastewater treatment SRF.
So these two provisions go a long way in providing our States
flexibility and the communities the flexibility they need to maximize
their resources with the environmental concerns that are of the most
immediate nature.
Also, the issue of radon is one that I have long been involved in,
and there is still considerable debate about the amount of risk posed
by low-level exposure to radon. But according to the American Water
Works Association, capital costs alone could reach $12 billion
nationwide. And from a relative risk standpoint, we should consider the
fact that radon in drinking water contributes less than 5 percent to
the total amount of radon exposure.
So given these statistics, I believe we chose a responsible course in
addressing the radon issue. The bill directs EPA to set a new standard
based on risk assessment conducted by the National Academy of Sciences
and also would allow for an alternative, less stringent standard
equivalent to outdoor air levels. Certainly no one would want to have
all the wells, or 90 percent of the wells, in particular States ruled
undrinkable because of standards like that. It would just cause chaos.
This is a reasonable solution that will both protect public health and
save money.
Finally, I thank the managers for also including the provision to
establish five small-system technology centers across the country to
develop and test new technologies for the smallest of systems. One of
these centers, I hope, may be established at the University of New
Hampshire, which has an extensive background in this area and will be a
huge asset to the New England region.
So I am pleased today that we are at the point that this bill will
become law, that the President of the United States has indicated he
will sign it, and that it has broad-based support, bipartisan support,
and support among hundreds of communities throughout the United States.
Also, I thank my staff assistant Christine Russell for her hard work
and help on this issue throughout the year.
With that I yield back any time I have, Mr. President.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today the Senate will pass legislation to
amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to give State and local communities
the flexibility to ensure that consumers
[[Page S9494]]
have safe drinking water, and send it to the President for his
signature. For the past several years, I have worked closely with
communities in my State to support legislation that throws out the one-
size-fits-all approach and the costly mandates of the current law, and
to replace it with greater flexibility and a commonsense approach.
Today all the hard work of these communities paid off.
Several years ago, I began working with communities across my State
that were frustrated with the one-size-fits-all approach of current
law. The current law tied the hands of the State to work with local
communities by mandating prohibitively expensive treatment technologies
on the smallest of water systems--the cost of which would have bankrupt
some of our State's smaller communities. In 1994, I held a safe
drinking water forum in Moses Lake, WA to hear first hand from local
leaders how to fix the current law. Over 100 people turned out for that
hearing, and their message was clear--the current law was broken and in
need of repair. Together with local government leaders I supported
legislation in the 103d Congress that overwhelmingly passed the Senate.
Unfortunately, that legislation did not make it to the President's desk
for his signature.
This year, however, was different. This year, the Senate
overwhelmingly passed S. 1316. Included in that legislation, and in the
conference report that the Senate will pass today are important reforms
to the law that this Senator believes will ultimately facilitate
greater compliance with the law--without the bureaucracy and redtape.
The conference report addresses some of the most critical concerns
raised by local governments in Washington State. The conference report
establishes a Safe Drinking Water Act State revolving loan fund to
assist communities in financing system improvements to comply with the
act, similar to the Clean Water Act State revolving loan fund; throws
out the mandate that EPA regulate 25 additional contaminants based upon
a benefit-cost analysis; the legislation also gives States the ability
to grant variances to small systems in order to facilitate greater
compliance with the act.
section 106 of the conference report
Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member
of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and their staff,
for including my amendment in the conference report that recognizes
that future treatment technologies will have the capacity to provide
safer water than that provided by traditional filtration. Section 106
of the conference report establishes a limited alternative to
filtration, if the system can utilize another form of treatment that
will provide greater removal of pathogens, than that of filtration. The
need for this amendment was brought to my attention by the city of
Seattle. The city has two water supply sources, the Cedar River
Watershed, and the Tolt River supply. Because of turbidity problems in
the Tolt supply, the city is in the process of implementing filtration
technology on the Tolt. Conversely, the Cedar River supply does not
have turbidity problems--it consistently tests below average for
turbidity--and the city is seeking an alternative to filtration for the
Cedar River supply.
Currently the Cedar is an unfiltered system, and therefore must
comply with the surface water treatment rule. The rule sets forward 11
specific criteria, and calls for extensive monitoring of the system, to
ensure that the system continues to provide clean water to its
customers. During 1992, the Cedar violated 1 of the 11 criteria, and,
consequently, was required to initiate filtration plans. Shortly
thereafter the city entered into an agreement with the State and EPA
region 10 to achieve compliance with the rule without filtration.
Seattle has been working closely with EPA region 10 and the
Washington State health department for the past several years to find a
way to treat the Cedar supply, without filtration. Filtration would
cost the city roughly $200 million, but the city believes that the
process of ozonation would better meet the city's drinking water needs.
The Ozonation process would only cost $68 million. Ozonation is a
process that is considerably less expensive than filtration and is
believed to be the next up and coming technology for ensuring clean
drinking water.
The ozonation process is proven to be more effective than filtration
in getting rid of harmful pathogens in a water supply, like
cryptosporidium and giardia. Filtration technology would inactivate
99.9 percent of cryptosporidium, but ozonation would inactivate 99.999
percent of the cryptosporidium. The increase of .099 is considered a
greater increase in the level of human health protection.
Mr. President, I want to thank all of the people in Washington State
who took the time to call or write me about the need to reform the Safe
Drinking Water Act--their message came through loud and clear. By
giving State and local communities the flexibility to address unique
drinking water problems, the conference report completely and totally
rejects the ``Washington, D.C. knows best'' way of thinking. When this
legislation is signed into law communities across Washington State will
have safe and affordable drinking water. This legislation is a victory
for consumers across our State, and for the local governments that
worked hard for its passage. I am proud to support the conference
report to reform the Safe Drinking Water Act, and urge my colleagues to
do the same.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of the Safe
Drinking Water Act conference report. Government's most important
responsibility is to protect public health and safety. Safe drinking
water is the lifeblood of our society and the basic foundation of good
health. This bill incorporates sound scientific principles and protects
public health and safety. The Safe Drinking Water Act keeps our promise
to the American people.
This bill provides flexibility to State and local governments,
enabling them to better assist water utilities in complying with
Federal health and safety standards. This is a win-win situation
because it provides utilities with the resources to meet safety
standards without putting them out of business.
This legislation not only protects the safety of our drinking water,
it will create jobs in construction. Modernizing our infrastructure is
one of the best investments we can make. This bill helps burst the myth
that environmental protection comes at the expense of economic
development. The reality is that good environmental policy is good
business.
Staying on the cutting edge of environmental technology presents the
American economy with a large and growing market here and around the
world. While the United States is already a leader in this burgeoning
market, we should seize the initiative to expand our leadership even
further.
Marylanders have told me they want adequate resources devoted to
making drinking water safe and clean. I believe this bill is the best
way to move forward toward the safest, cleanest drinking water for
Maryland and America.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am pleased to join with my colleagues in support of
the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. This conference report
represents a thoughtful, bipartisan effort which weds protection of
public health with the flexibility necessary for cost-effective
implementation. It emphasizes using more and better science in
identifying contaminants, and training water system operators to meet
the established guidelines. It will improve protection of vulnerable
populations, including pregnant women, the sick, and the elderly. It
creates a new Federal grant program to help water systems struggling to
comply with Federal requirements.
The conference report contains a provision that is of particular
interest to New York State. Three upstate watersheds provide New York
City with its drinking water, which has been of such high quality
historically that the City has had no need to filtrate its water. In
recent years, however, it has become evident that a comprehensive
watershed protection program is necessary to preserve the purity of the
region's water. As such, New York City and State have launched a
collaborative effort to safeguard the fragile upstate ecosystem, an
effort which I feel will be instructive to other cities and regions of
the country. The bill will provide financial support for monitoring the
success of this pilot program, which will likely prove effective for
other municipalities.
[[Page S9495]]
I also wish to praise the provisions of this conference report which
will allow the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] to consider
relative costs, health benefits, and competing health risks when
formulating new standards for drinking water. This is a rational
approach which will help us allocate resources more effectively and
efficiently.
Environmental legislation places too much emphasis on risk
assessment, resulting in an ineffective use of science. This perverse
situation stems from directing EPA, explicitly or implicitly, to
regulate environmental pollutants to safe levels of exposure. In so
doing, EPA must scientifically determine what is safe.
The problem is simple: the premise is false. Science cannot define
safety. Decisions about what is safe--what is an acceptable risk--are
based very much on personal or societal values--informed by science,
yes, but based on values. Therefore, when legislation forces agencies
to use science to determine safe levels of exposure, the effect is to
set EPA and other agencies up for failure. Risk managers have no
incentive to take any action other than to err on the side of safety.
This bill enables EPA to avoid imposing costly regulations resulting
in little or no benefit. It prudently allows EPA to incorporate
economic, scientific, and social considerations in achieving its safe
drinking water goals efficiently and effectively. It arms EPA with the
best tools to address existing and potential problems with the Nation's
drinking water supply, in reasoned and measured steps, and it
establishes new requirements for keeping the public apprised of the
quality of their water.
I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their hard work
and willingness to compromise on the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments, and I strongly urge its passage.
Mr. LOTT. The Senate is about to take up and, I trust, pass the
conference report on the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996.
This is a strong, but balanced, environmental bill. It was written with
the advice of many public health officials across the country,
including those who are responsible for providing the very water that
their families and friends drink every day. Their advice helped make
this a common sense bill that will solve real life problems, without
creating new ones. This is legislation that will truly make drinking
water safer for all Americans.
Not surprisingly, this bill has strong bipartisan support in both the
House and Senate, and the support of virtually every organization
representing State and local governments and water agencies responsible
for providing safe and affordable drinking water. This bill, first
introduced by Republican Senator Dirk Kempthorne, will improve public
health and reduce unnecessary costs and Federal regulation.
The legislation fundamentally changes the way drinking water is
regulated. It will improve public health protection, gives States and
local governments greater flexibility to target their scarce resources
on priority health risks, and reduce Federal unfunded mandates.
The legislation requires that a meaningful cost-benefit analysis be
done whenever EPA issues a drinking water standard. The legislation
requires EPA to use peer-reviewed science to identify and regulate
contaminants that pose the greatest risks to public health. This is
critical if we are going to protect public health without bankrupting
States and local governments that have to implement Federal standards.
The bill strengthens the partnership between States and the Federal
Government. For the first time, States will have the authority to
tailor Federal requirements to meet their needs.
The legislation helps small systems. Most small systems don't have
the financial resources or technical expertise to meet treatment
requirements that were really designed for very large systems. Under
this legislation systems serving fewer than 10,000 people can get
regulatory relief to use alternative treatment technologies that may be
less expensive but still protect public health. Small systems also may
receive special financial assistance.
The legislation encourages voluntary measures to prevent
contamination of source water. The bill provides financial incentives
for States, communities and stakeholders to work together in a
nonregulatory context to develop programs to prevent contaminants from
getting into source water. This provision is endorsed by the national
agricultural community.
The legislation gives States financial assistance to get the job
done. The legislation authorizes $6 billion in grants to the States
over the next 6 years to improve drinking water, and does so in the
context of the Republican plan to balance the budget by the year 2002.
The States use this grant money to capitalize a loan fund for local
communities to construct and upgrade their drinking water systems.
The legislation reduces unnecessary unfunded mandates that increase
the costs of drinking water without improving drinking water. The CBO
says the Senate bill, on which this final bill was based would likely
result in significant net savings over current law. For example, EPA
now arbitrarily regulates 25 additional contaminants over 3 years
regardless of whether they are found in water or whether they present a
health risk. This mandate was expensive, didn't improve public health
and diverted resources away from stopping killer waterborne diseases.
In its place, this legislation gives EPA flexibility to regulate
contaminants that actually occur in drinking water and pose real health
risks.
The legislation includes a modified right to know or consumer
confidence provision. This provision was part of the House bill. Senate
negotiators improved the House language by providing greater
flexibility for small systems and adding language to make the reports
more meaningful to consumers.
This bill is important for the reforms it contains. It is also
important for what the bill represents. This bill is bipartisan, and it
shows that issues of public health and environment needs not be
partisan. There are many Senators who deserve credit for passage of
this conference report. This bill was first introduced by Senator Dirk
Kempthorne of Idaho whose 10 months of careful and bipartisan
negotiations led to the Senate approving his bill 99-0 last November.
He worked tirelessly to get this bill enacted into law. Last Sunday,
for example, he spent more than 6 hours negotiating with the House in
writing this bill. This is Senator Kempthorne's second major bill to
become law this Congress, and it is a remarkable accomplishment for a
Senator in just his 4th year in the Senate. Last year, Senator
Kempthorne led the congressional effort to pass the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act. And it is significant that the Congressional Budget Office
says this Safe Drinking Water Act comply with the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act. In fact, as I have already noted, CBO says this bill will
``likely result in significant net savings over current law.''
I also want to commend other Senators who worked long and hard to see
that this bill passed. Senator John Chafee, the chairman of the
Environmental and Public Works Committee was getting this bill through
his committee, the Senate floor and through conference. I also commend
the bipartisan group of Senate conferees--Senators Warner, Thomas,
Smith, Baucus, Reid, and Lautenberg who helped develop the original
bill and the final bill with the House of Representatives.
Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 6 minutes remaining on your side.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield all of our remaining time to the
very distinguished Senator from Nebraska, who, I might say, Mr.
President, although he is not a member of the committee, has been so
deeply active in this issue to make sure that we get to the Safe
Drinking Water Act that I at times thought he was a member of the
committee. He is one of the main reasons why we are here today. I very
much tip my hat to the Senator from Nebraska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, let me first pay my compliments to Senator
Chafee, Senator Baucus, Senator Kempthorne, and Senator Reid.
This is a very difficult piece of legislation. If you had asked me a
week ago
[[Page S9496]]
if I thought we would be able to get to conference and final passage
before the August recess, I would not be very optimistic about it. In
fact, I was prepared to take up the measure on radon in the VA-HUD
appropriations bill for the fourth year in a row. I do not know how we
managed to get it done. I am very grateful for its completion. For all
of the rural communities of Nebraska--90 percent of our public water
supply is in communities under 2,500 population--they all thank you.
This bill probably saved our State millions of dollars over the next 10
years.
All the consumers of drinking water will have safer drinking water as
a consequence of this change, and we are very grateful to Senator
Chafee, Senator Baucus, Senator Kempthorne, and Senator Reid.
This is a very important piece of legislation. It is likely to have,
I think, a unanimous vote here in the Senate at an age when people
wonder whether or not Republicans and Democrats can work together. It
is a significant improvement in our law. I am very grateful that we are
enacting it.
Chairman Chafee and Senator Baucus deserve our thanks and
appreciation for their leadership on this issue. I also want to thank
Senator Kempthorne for his personal commitment to resolving the tough
issues involved in providing the public with safe drinking water and
for his determination and willingness to take the time necessary to
work out a compromise, and Senator Reid who, like me, comes from a
rural State that has a lot to gain by the passage of this conference
report. I know they have put their best into this legislation and I
appreciate their efforts.
One of the aspects of this bill that I have supported since the
beginning of the debate 3 years ago, is that it gives States and
communities more flexibility to meet safe drinking water standards. For
example, the bill establishes a State revolving fund [SRF] to help
finance drinking water systems. It authorizes the fund at $1 billion
per year through 2003. The flexibility built into the bill allows
States to transfer up to one third of the funds between the newly
established safe drinking water SRF and the already existing Clean
Water Act Revolving Fund. Furthermore, the bill allows for 30 percent
of the State's revolving fund to be used as grants for disadvantaged
communities. States deserve a chance to put their resources where they
are most needed.
Nowhere is this more clear than in dealing with the public health
threat of radon. For the last 3 years, through the appropriations
process, I have kept EPA from publishing a drinking water standard for
radon. The reason I did this is because regulating radon in water does
not make sense when the known health threat for radon is through
inhalation, not ingestion. Ninety-five percent of the risk is from
radon in soil, not water. This bill allows States to use a multimedia
approach, that focuses on getting rid of radon in homes and schools
that enters these facilities through the soil, instead of putting their
limited resources into getting radon out of water.
I have long believed that the way to solve this issue is through a
multimedia approach. Under this bill, EPA will use a risk assessment
completed by the National Academy of Science to promulgate a radon
regulation. Once the maximum contaminant level [MCL] is established, if
it reduces radon in water to a lower level than that in the air
outside, EPA will promulgate an alternative maximum contaminant level
which is equal to the amount of radon in air outside or approximately
3,000 picocuries per liter. States will be able to use that alternative
MCL if they have a multimedia program which is approved by EPA.
It is a win-win solution, allowing taxpayers to get the must public
health protection for their money and ensuring the water is safe.
This is a good approach and I'm glad that I can now stop going to the
Appropriations Committee to ask for their assistance on the radon
issue.
One of the largest costs of compliance with the Safe Drinking Water
Act is monitoring.
States have to monitor contaminants in drinking water whether they
exist in their water systems or not.
All Nebraska communities have asked that the current system be
revised to let them test for contaminants that exist in Nebraska.
Current law allows for a waiver process. However, the process is
expensive and time consuming, and the benefits accrue to the local
systems while the costs are incurred by the States. I fought hard to
see that these provisions be changed.
This bill calls on EPA to revise current monitoring rules and it
gives States the authority to give monitoring relief to small systems
for a 3-year period if the systems don't have the contaminant.
Additionally, States can adopt alternative monitoring requirements if
they have a source water assessment program.
Aside from radon and monitoring, standard setting posed a major
problem. As we all know, in the 1986 amendments we decided to regulate
25 new contaminants every 3 years whether they were needed or not. This
strict method of establishing standards caused some contaminants to be
regulated without a sound scientific basis.
I pushed for a change in that process. I believe that EPA needs to
spend more time working with other public health agencies prior to
considering a regulation. That is why, through the new contaminant
selection process, EPA must consult with the Department of Health and
Human Services, more specifically the Centers for Disease Control to
determine which contaminants should be researched to see if they should
be regulated.
Once contaminants are thoroughly research--and this bill provides
money to do just that--EPA must conduct a benefit-cost analysis prior
to the promulgation of a regulation. That's the way decisions ought to
be made. I've fought hard to see this provision implemented and I am
confident that it will allow EPA to make the best choices for the
protection of public health. Decisions that will allow a State or
community's resources to be directed toward the greatest public health
threat.
I fully support this bill. I have worked hard to ensure that it
provides the best public health protection possible, flexibility for
States, and affordability for small systems. I applaud the work of the
committee and I thank them for their willingness to allow me into the
debate and negotiations.
I want to stop here so this bill can be passed and sent on to the
President for signature.
I close again by applauding the heroic efforts of the chairman, the
distinguished Senator Chafee from Rhode Island, Senator Baucus from
Montana, Senator Kempthorne from Idaho, and Senator Reid from Nevada. I
would also like to thank their staff, in particular Jimmie Powell,
Steve Shimberg, Jo-Ellen Darcy, Mike Evans, Tom Sliter, Ann Klee and
Greg Daines. It simply would not have been possible without their
belief that water systems in our Nation need to be safe and that we
need to change the way we regulate in order to accomplish that
objective.
I am very, very grateful. But, more importantly, the people of
Nebraska are very grateful for your hard work, your diligence, and
eventually your success.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, for the very generous remarks he made. He was
hip deep in this when we started some 4 years ago, and although he is
not on the Environment Committee, he has followed it extremely closely
and has been extremely helpful and constructive to us. So I thank him
personally.
In conclusion, I thank the staff: Ann Klee and Buzz Fawcett with
Senator Kempthorne; Jo-Ellen Darcy, Mike Evans, and Tom Sliter with
Senator Baucus; Ann Loomis with Senator Warner; Mike Smith with Senator
Thomas; Scott Slesinger with Senator Lautenberg; Gregg Daines with
Senator Reid; Chris Russell with Senator Smith; Diane Hill with Senator
Kerrey, and, of course, from the majority staff of the Environment and
Public Works Committee, Steve Shimberg, Jimmie Powell, who was the lead
on this, who was absolutely phenomenal, and Stephanie Daigle. All of
them deserve a lot of praise and thanks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The chair recognizes the Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 30
seconds.
[[Page S9497]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I know the distinguished chairman of the
committee will join with me in also thanking Administrator Browner; Bob
Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator; and Cynthia Dougherty, and a
former administration official who worked very hard on this
legislation, Jim Elden.
This administration has shown leadership on this issue by making it
an environmental priority back in 1993. Today, we have made that
priority a reality. We have a divided Government, as we all know. It
takes cooperation to get things done. They were an integral part of the
solution. We are all very thankful.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I certainly join in those thanks.
Now we are ready to go to a vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference
report.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. LOTT. Before we begin the vote, I believe we are prepared to get
a consent agreement on the next two bills, and I would liked to get
that done. I would like to make sure that the minority leader is here
and has a chance to read it over.
Why not outline what we have here and when he comes, we will actually
put it in the form of unanimous consent.
This unanimous consent agreement would be that immediately following
the disposition of the safe drinking water conference report vote, the
Chair lay before the Senate the health insurance reform conference
report, and it be considered as having been read and it be in order for
Senator Wellstone to make a point of order that the conference exceeded
the scope with respect to section 281 of title II, subtitle H, and
following the ruling of the Chair, Senator Wellstone be recognized to
appeal the ruling of the Chair; that the appeal be limited to 10
minutes to be equally divided in the usual form; following the vote on
the appeal, if overturned, the point of order be null and void, and
that the Senate immediately agree to the Senate Concurrent Resolution
now at the desk correcting enrollment of the conference report.
So that would be the first part of how we would deal with the health
insurance reform package. And then we would ask that after adopting the
correcting resolution, there be 2 hours for debate on the conference
report to be equally divided between Senators Kassebaum and Kennedy,
with 30 minutes of the Kassebaum time under the control of Senator
Domenici, and following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the
conference report be laid aside; it would be made the pending business
at the direction of the majority leader after notification of the
Democratic leader, and that the Senate then proceed to an immediate
vote on the adoption of the conference report without further action or
debate.
So there would be two parts to that consent with regard to the health
insurance reform package, first the one with regard to the point of
order on section 281, and then we would have 2 hours of debate on the
conference report itself, with 30 minutes specifically earmarked for
Senator Domenici.
Then we would further ask consent, after that is agreed to, that the
conference report to accompany the Small Business Tax Relief Act, H.R.
3448, be limited to--we will have to get the exact time, I think 60
minutes there--for debate, to be equally divided between Senators Roth
and Moynihan, and the conference report be considered as having been
read, and following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate
proceed to vote on adoption of the conference report without any
further action or debate.
Does the Senator, the distinguished Democratic leader, have a comment
or question about this?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, our staffs are just
now combing through the language, and I think within a few moments we
will be prepared to enter into the agreement. I did not hear all of the
explanation from the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. When the Senator is ready. I think I will read it. I will
just read it again so everybody can hear it, but I wondered if the
Senator had any questions he wanted to raise.
I might note if I could, if we could get that agreed to, we would
have this vote and then we would have a total under that of 3 more
hours of debate on the two bills, plus the time that would be taken,
which should not be very much, on the section 281 correction, and then
we would couple that with votes. That would all be completed by around
8 or 8:30. And then whatever wrap-up we would have at that point, if we
could get an agreement on the defense authorization bill, any other
unanimous-consent requests, of course, we would do those then. But I
just want the Members to know it would involve a vote now, another vote
in 2 hours, and then another vote 1\1/2\ hours or so after that.
Mr. President, I will yield for a question of the Senator from Rhode
Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. I do not think the majority leader would find a rebellion
if that 2 hours of debate were reduced.
Mr. LOTT. I would be more than willing to see it reduced.
Mr. CHAFEE. We completed a whole conference report here in 1 hour
equally divided.
Mr. LOTT. There are some Senators who would like to be heard on this
health insurance issue, including, I know, Senator Domenici and Senator
Kennedy and Senator Wellstone and others. They can always yield back
time. I know it is not something we like to do in the Senate very much.
If anybody would like to yield back time, I do not think Senator
Daschle would object and I know I would not object, and we could finish
earlier.
Mr. DASCHLE. If the majority leader will yield----
Mr. LOTT. Yes, I yield to the Democratic leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. To one other possibility, one other possibility would be
to have the votes and people who care to talk about these things talk
after the votes.
Mr. LOTT. I would like to deem all the votes having occurred now and
have the rest of the night for debate.
Mr. DASCHLE. We ought to be able to work something out maybe during
the course of this vote.
Mr. LOTT. All right.
Mr. DASCHLE. Perhaps we could get a unanimous-consent agreement right
after that vote.
Mr. LOTT. Why not do that.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I note the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts is here. I spoke with him earlier in the day, and he
seemed to have a case of laryngitis, I thought, and perhaps he will not
have the steam for 2 hours or an hour. I say that hopefully.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I think I still have the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader still has the floor.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, since the Senator is having laryngitis, I
will not insist that he respond at this time. Let us have the vote. We
will work on the final time agreement during the vote, and hopefully we
can shorten that time and we can get our work done. So I yield the
floor.
Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
Mr. CHAFEE. No, they have not been ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The yeas and nays have been
ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the conference report. The clerk will
call the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] and
the Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 263 Leg.]
YEAS--98
Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frahm
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
[[Page S9498]]
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Pell
Pressler
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Murray
Pryor
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
conference report was agreed to.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe Members will be very interested in
this unanimous consent request. This will give them the idea of what
will be happening over the next hour and a half, and some feel, maybe,
of what might be in store for the balance of the night. We still have
some things we are trying to work through. But this is a very important
agreement. I am pleased we have it worked out. I think it is fair to
all concerned.
____________________