[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 58 (Thursday, May 12, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1994

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 1699

                      (Purpose: To amend the bill)

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], for himself, and 
     Mr. Hatfield, proposes an amendment numbered 1699.

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

                               Viability

       On page 12, line 10, strike ``50 percent'' and insert ``the 
     percentage prescribed in the following sentence''.
       On page 12, line 13, after the period, insert the 
     following: ``The percentage withheld shall be 10 percent for 
     fiscal year 1998, 30 percent for fiscal year 1999, and 30 
     percent for each subsequent fiscal year.''.
       On page 13, strike lines 16 through 20, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(2) Assistance to nonviable systems.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     no assistance under this part shall be provided to a public 
     water system that--
       ``(i) does not have the technical, managerial, and 
     financial capability to ensure compliance with the 
     requirements of this title; and
       ``(ii) has a history of past violations of any maximum 
     contaminant level, treatment technique, monitoring 
     requirement, or other requirement of a national primary 
     drinking water regulation or variance.
       ``(B) Restructuring.--A nonviable public water system may 
     receive assistance under this part if the owner or operator 
     of the system agrees to undertake changes in operations 
     (including ownership, management, accounting, rates, 
     maintenance, consolidation, alternative water supply, or 
     other procedures) to ensure that the system has the 
     technical, managerial, and financial capability to comply 
     with the requirements of this title over the long-term.
       ``(C) Prohibition.--No assistance under this part shall be 
     provided to a public water system for a project for which the 
     State determines that consolidation is appropriate other than 
     assistance for consolidation.
       Beginning on page 62, strike line 25 and all that follows 
     through page 64, line 22, and insert the following:
       (b) Viability of Public Water Systems.--Part B (42 U.S.C. 
     300g et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new section:


                       ``STATE VIABILITY PROGRAMS

       ``Sec. 1418. (a) In General.--Each State shall adopt a 
     State Drinking Water System Viability Program (referred to in 
     this section as the `State Viability Program') to ensure the 
     capability of public water systems in the State to comply 
     with the requirements of this title.
       ``(b) Program Elements.--A State Viability Program complies 
     with this section if it includes--
       ``(1) the legal authority to ensure that all new public 
     water systems commencing operation after October 1, 1997, 
     have the managerial, technical, and financial capability to 
     comply with national primary drinking water regulations and 
     other requirements of this title; and
       ``(2) a program to secure the voluntary restructuring 
     (including physical consolidation) of existing systems that 
     are in violation of a national primary drinking water 
     regulation or other requirement of this title and that lack 
     the managerial, technical, or financial capability to comply 
     with the regulation or requirement.
       ``(c) Submission and Approval of Programs.--
       ``(1) Submission.--Not later than 36 months after the date 
     of enactment of this section, each State shall submit to the 
     Administrator a proposal for a State Viability Program that 
     meets the requirements of this section.
       On page 66, line 2, strike the quotation marks and the 
     following period.
       On page 66, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(f) EPA Guidance.--Not later than 2 years after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall, after 
     consultation with officials of State and local governments, 
     publish guidance for use by the States--
       (1) identifying the factors contributing to nonviability of 
     public water systems; and
       (2) identifying technical, managerial, financial, and other 
     options to address the factors, including options that have 
     been successfully employed by States.
       ``(g) EPA Survey.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Administrator shall conduct a 
     survey of public water systems to identify public water 
     systems that are likely to be nonviable based on the 
     requirements of law and factors contributing to nonviability, 
     including the economic circumstances of the community. The 
     results of the survey shall be published with the guidance 
     prepared by the Administrator pursuant to subsection (f).''.

                               Monitoring

       On page 48, line 10, strike ``2 years'' and insert ``1 
     year''.
       On page 48, line 11, insert ``after consultation with 
     public health experts, representatives of the general public, 
     and officials of State and local governments,'' after 
     ``subparagraph,''.
       On page 48, line 16, strike ``propose'' and insert 
     ``promulgate''.
       Beginning on page 48, strike line 18 and all that follows 
     through page 51, line 2, and insert the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(D) State-established requirements.--
       ``(i) In general.--Each State with primary enforcement 
     responsibility may submit an application to the Administrator 
     to establish for any national drinking water regulation, 
     other than a regulation applicable to a microbial contaminant 
     (or indicator of a microbial contaminant), monitoring 
     requirements applicable to public water systems identified by 
     the State, in lieu of the monitoring requirements contained 
     in the regulation, if the monitoring requirements established 
     by the State are based on--

       ``(I) occurrence data and other relevant characteristics of 
     the contaminant or the systems subject to the requirements; 
     and
       ``(II) the monitoring frequencies are no less frequent than 
     the requirements of the national primary drinking water 
     regulations for a contaminant that has been detected at a 
     quantifiable level during the 5-year period ending on the 
     date of the monitoring.

       ``(ii) Compliance and enforcement.--The monitoring 
     requirement established by the State shall be adequate to 
     ensure compliance with, and enforcement of, each national 
     primary drinking water regulation.
       ``(iii) Approval.--The Administrator shall review an 
     application submitted by a State pursuant to this 
     subparagraph and approve the application, in whole or in 
     part, if the application meets the requirements of this 
     subparagraph. If the Administrator has not acted pursuant to 
     this clause within 180 days after submission of the 
     application, the application shall be deemed to be approved. 
     If the Administrator disapproves an application, or a part of 
     an application, the Administrator shall provide to the State 
     a description of the changes needed for the program to be 
     approved. A monitoring program approved pursuant to this 
     clause shall be approved for a period of 3 years and each 
     subsequent approval shall be for a period of 5 years.''.

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking the managers of 
this bill, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, 
Senator Baucus, and the ranking member of the committee, Senator 
Chafee, as well as Senator Hatfield and many others, for their hard 
work on this legislation.
  Coming to agreement on this bill, and more importantly, the managers' 
amendment, Mr. President, has not been an easy task. It is the product 
of many different points of view, and it carries the best possible 
public health protection while providing reasonable regulatory relief 
to small communities.
  I, as well, would like to thank Carol Browner of the Environmental 
Protection Agency. She was extremely helpful in providing assistance 
and making sure that we were able to produce this piece of legislation.
  I want to thank as well the senior Senator from Nebraska, Senator 
Exon, who was extremely important in developing this amendment. And, 
most importantly to me, Mr. President, literally hundreds of 
Nebraskans--I must say I have been extremely surprised and pleased, and 
I will reference later the amount of enthusiasm there is at home in the 
State of Nebraska for this piece of legislation.
  There is an urgency at home to enact it for the purpose of 
maintaining the quality and the safety of our drinking water and 
continuing to make progress in the quality of that water. There is a 
willingness at home to exercise authority. On behalf of the people of 
Nebraska, Mr. President, I thank Senator Baucus, I thank Senator 
Chafee, and I thank the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Administrator Browner.
  Mr. President, I believe it would be useful for some of our 
colleagues, who may wonder about this legislation--and, certainly, I, 
myself, did. It became clear to me that it was important when many in 
Nebraska were contacting the office and talking about their needs and 
their concerns. So I looked at some of the history.
  Briefly, Mr. President, the regulation of safe drinking water quality 
in the United States dates clear back to the turn of the century, when 
the U.S. Public Health Service established the first standards for 
controlling bacteria in the water.
  However, Mr. President, it was not until Congress enacted the Safe 
Drinking Water Act in 1974--after 4 years of rather contentious 
debate--that the United States, by law, established the current 
framework under which we provide for safe drinking water to our 
citizens.
  The legislation in 1974 said:

       Its purpose is to assure that water supply systems serving 
     the public meet minimum national standards for the protection 
     of public health.

  Mr. President, the act meant public concern over findings of harmful 
chemicals in drinking water supplies. This act, 20 years ago, for the 
first time gave EPA discretionary authority to set drinking water 
standards. Further, it provided for national primary drinking water 
regulations that specified maximum containment levels or treatment 
techniques. It established regulations to protect underground sources 
of drinking water, and established groundwater protection grants for 
State wellhead projectionary programs.
  In 1986, the act was amended because the EPA had been slack in 
setting standards. Congress required them to set 25 standards every 3 
years. Congress also strengthened and expanded the act's monitoring 
compliance and enforcement requirements.
  Mr. President, for my colleagues' reference, it is these provisions 
that State and local governments are most concerned about. These are 
the provisions that the State and local governments are bringing to our 
attention, where they are suggesting changes that need to occur because 
the monitoring costs at the local level have escalated rapidly, and, in 
many cases, the regulations are being promulgated with limited science 
just to get them done.
  Mr. President, a lot of attention has been paid to this act since 
1986, including an amendment in the 100th Congress intended to reduce 
exposure to lead. Many are skeptical that we are going to be able to 
reauthorize this legislation. Some, in fact, are saying: Well, maybe 
nothing is better than something. Maybe we are better off not enacting 
legislation.
  Well, Mr. President, we have appropriated a revolving fund for the 
States and the local communities to make the investments necessary to 
create a safer supply of water for our citizens. The existing law is 
inadequate, and I, once again, assert my high praise for the chairman 
of this committee and the ranking member of this committee in their 
diligence and urgency to make certain that we reauthorize this act in 
1994.
  Mr. President, throughout the history of the national drinking water 
problem, there has been substantial State and local involvement. But 
since 1994 the State and local governments have relied on the Federal 
Government to set priorities and establish environmental goals. States 
have taken an active role in administering Federal programs or gaining 
primacy, and understand the need for public health protection. I 
emphasize that. There really is a changed enthusiasm for accepting the 
primacy that 49 of 50 States currently have. They understand that the 
citizens want safe drinking water.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a resolution--a unanimous 
resolution, I might add--that was passed by the Nebraska unicameral 
legislature be printed in the Record at this time.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       Legislative Resolution 349

       Whereas, the protection of the public health and welfare is 
     the primary concern of public water supply systems; and
       Whereas, the ability of public water supply systems to 
     protect the health and welfare of its citizenry has been 
     greatly reduced by unfunded federal mandates contained in the 
     Safe Drinking Water Act; and
       Whereas, public water supply systems cannot afford to 
     commit limited resources on federal mandates which provide 
     little or no benefit to public health, but must rather be 
     permitted to focus their resources on protections which 
     ensure the highest safety for public health; and
       Whereas, several proposals currently before Congress would 
     amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to allow public water 
     supply systems greater ability to effectively protect the 
     public health and welfare by ensuring that limited public 
     resources can be sensibly focused on the most serious risks 
     presented by contaminants in drinking water.
       Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Members of the 
     ninety-third Legislature of Nebraska, second session:
       1. That the Legislature urges Congress to amend the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act in such a manner as will permit public 
     water supply systems to focus their resources on issues which 
     threaten public health and which will provide flexibility in 
     meeting the real health needs of its citizenry.
       2. That the Clerk of the Legislature transmit a copy of 
     this resolution to the Speaker of the United States House of 
     Representatives, the President of the United States Senate, 
     all members of the congressional delegation from the State of 
     Nebraska, the Administrator of the United States 
     Environmental Protection Agency, and the Regional 
     Administrator, Region VII of the United States Environmental 
     Protection Agency.

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, this resolution, once again, underscores 
the willingness of the people of the States to take charge of this 
program. They are not asking for regulatory relief without a 
willingness to assume the responsibility for setting priorities. In 
this resolution, the operative phrase says, we ``urge Congress to amend 
the Safe Drinking Water Act in such a manner as will permit public 
water supply systems to focus their resources on issues which threaten 
public health and which will provide flexibility in meeting the real 
health needs of its citizenry.''
  I emphasize, Mr. President, the unicameral of the State of Nebraska--
elected officials of the State of Nebraska--are saying that they want 
to be able to carry out the objective of improving the public water 
supply systems and the quality and safety of those water supply 
systems.
  Mr. President, the managers' amendment, which was approved earlier, 
did a number of things, some of which I will reference. But I would now 
like to reference the changes that are made in the Kerrey-Hatfield 
amendment, which is now before this body.
  One of the biggest issues with safe drinking water is the monitoring 
requirements that were put into effect in 1986. One of the largest 
costs of compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act is this 
monitoring. Every Nebraska community that has contacted me has asked 
that the current system be revised to let them test for contaminants 
that exist in Nebraska--not an unreasonable request--rather than 
testing for contaminants that do not exist in Nebraska.
  Mr. President, we have been contacted by the Governor of the State--
an elected official, obviously--by mayors in every single community, 
and city council people, who are saying,

       We want to set our priorities. We are committed to the 
     public health of the people of the State of Nebraska, but we 
     want to monitor those contaminants that are in our drinking 
     water, or potentially in our drinking water.

  Under current law, States can go through a waiver process to get some 
monitoring requirements changed. However, the process is expensive and 
time-consuming, and the benefits accrue to the local systems, while 
costs are incurred by the States. The States that have waivers have 
seen huge decreases in monitoring costs. These potential savings should 
be spread to all States.
  The original bill reported out of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee creates a more flexible program in the bill, but the problems 
remain.
  What our amendment does: First, Mr. President, it simplifies the 
criteria that States must use to evaluate alternative monitoring 
regulations. States would instead look at how often a contaminant has 
occurred, and other factors, such as whether it is used for crops 
manufactured in the State, and various factors.
  Second, the amendment creates an automatic approval process to 
prevent State programs from being caught in an open-ended EPA approval 
process. The EPA would have 180 days to respond to a State's plan. If 
the EPA did not respond, the State's plan would be considered approved.
  Third, the amendment eliminates the EPA's ability to revoke approval 
of a monitoring plan at any time. Instead, the State would have to 
reapply to the EPA for an extension of that waiver every 5 years.
  The second big issue that this amendment addresses is the issue of 
viability. A March 1994 GAO study on small drinking water systems found 
that nonviable systems are one of the major problems many States face 
in guaranteeing safe drinking water to all citizens.
  The nonviable systems are those systems that lack the capacity, for 
financial reasons, technical reasons, or managerial reasons, to fully 
comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act over the long run. These 
systems, Mr. President, are a major problem, because they cannot 
deliver reliably safe drinking water.
  As reported, S. 2019 takes a first step in dealing with the national 
viability problem and calls for the States to develop a viability 
program to prevent nonviable systems from being created.
  The Kerrey-Hatfield amendment first eliminates the requirement that 
States have viability programs for a State to keep primacy. This is 
extremely controversial, but I urge my colleagues who may think that we 
are getting lax with this requirement to consider this: Only one State 
currently has relinquished primacy, and that is Wyoming.
  I asked Administrator Browner when she was before the Appropriations 
Committee, is the EPA prepared to take over the safe drinking water 
program in all the States? And the answer unequivocally is no. The 
taxpayers of the United States are not prepared for that to occur. And 
thus it is Senator Hatfield's and my judgment that eliminating this 
requirement makes sense for the goals of safe drinking water and 
unquestionably makes sense for the administration of the program, and 
it replaces the requirement that States adopt legal authority to force 
nonviable systems to restructure with the requirements for States to 
develop a program to encourage voluntary reconstructing and 
consolidation.
  Third, for those who fear that this voluntary compliance is not 
enough, it does replace the 50-percent penalty against the States 
revolving loan fund grants for States that fail to implement viability 
programs and the 3-year phase-in penalties beginning in 1998. States 
without viability programs will lose 10 percent of the revolving loan 
fund grant in fiscal year 1998, 30 percent in 1999, and 50 percent in 
the year 2000.
  Fourth, it requires EPA to develop guidelines to viability and to 
conduct a survey of systems to determine the number and characteristics 
of our national viability program.
  Mr. President, I would like to comment on some changes that were made 
in the original bill included in the managers' amendment about which I 
was an advocate and for which I am grateful the managers included in 
the amendment.
  The first is the good science risk assessment issue, also very 
controversial. This bill and in the managers' amendment addresses the 
concerns of Nebraskans who have raised this issue with me. There has 
been a loud cry coming from the community, again from the community 
level. This is not coming from some ogre out there. This is coming at 
the grassroot levels--the mayors, city councils, legislators, the 
Governor's office--people who have been elected to be concerned about 
safe drinking water.
  In 1982 when we first authorized the act, the policy was set into the 
act, as I said earlier, to require EPA 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.
  The bill, as originally reported, eliminated the 25 new contaminants 
every 3 years and replaced the requirement the EPA study 7 contaminants 
every 5 years and make an independent decision about regulation.
  This change will provide tremendous regulatory relief to EPA, States, 
and water systems without jeopardizing public health.
  The managers' amendment, in my judgment, has made the report language 
even better by saying that the Centers for Disease Control will be 
brought in in a consultative basis. The EPA is required under this 
legislation to consult with the CDC in selecting contaminants to be 
considered for regulation.
  The people of the United States of America look to the CDC as experts 
in health issues. This will enable us without the typical disagreements 
as to whether or not the EPA is selecting an item that is a health 
hazard, and this will allow the citizens who are concerned about the 
safety of their drinking water to have not only a scientific evaluation 
but a scientific evaluation that is done by a health agency that has 
very high credibility in the community.
  The managers' amendment also requires EPA to, with good science, 
assess the rest of the contaminants before proceeding with the 
regulation. This will help EPA pursue regulation of substances in 
drinking water that pose the greatest risk to human health.
  Mr. President, the next thing that the managers' amendment includes 
is a cost-benefit analysis in the standards setting. This was the most 
contentious and difficult of the issues to come to agreement on.
  The issue, Mr. President, is best expressed by looking at the 
Nebraska League of Cities. They sent a petition with 60 signatures. 
Again, I said this many times. These are signatures of elected 
officials at the local level, specifically asking the Senate to include 
provisions that change the current process for setting standards to 
include public health benefits and cost as factors in determining new 
requirements, and the managers' amendment requires EPA to assess the 
amount of health risk reduction and compliance cost of the proposed 
regulation.
  After this analysis, EPA may set the standard at a less stringent 
level if, and these definitions are spelled out in the colloquy that 
was entered into earlier, may set the standards at a less stringent 
level if the cost can be substantially reduced and the health risk is 
not increased significantly, a critical level of reauthorization 
because it creates a tighter and more explicit relationship between 
regulations, health protection, and the cost of compliance.
  The next item, Mr. President, is that S. 2019 includes a multimedia 
approach to a health risk that has been given a great deal of 
attention, and that is radon. The idea here is that you want to put 
your money where it does the most good, and essentially what the 
reauthorized bill would say that approximately 80 percent of the risk 
of radon comes from the air, about 20 percent comes from the water, and 
essentially say that those States that have indoor air programs would 
be able to be given some regulatory relief.
  The managers' amendment includes language and essentially sets a 
1,500 picocurie liter floor on standards for radon with no exception 
for States that have indoor air programs. Essentially all States are 
allowed to use the alternative level.
  Mr. President, earlier the distinguished Senator from Montana and the 
distinguished Senator from Rhode Island talked about the importance of 
funding and the changes made in the revolving fund. I will merely 
endorse what it was that they said and applaud them for making changes 
in the funding. That was earlier provided.
  I will conclude, Mr. President, by thanking once again the chairman 
of the committee, Senator Baucus of Montana, Senator Chafee of Rhode 
Island, Senator Hatfield especially with whom I worked, Senator Exon, 
the senior Senator from Nebraska, who was extremely helpful in 
participating, Senators Dorgan, Conrad, Warner, DeConcini, Boren, 
Kempthorne, Nickles, Smith, Simpson, Daschle, Gorton, and Brown.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.


                         privilege of the floor

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that 
Maureen Koetz of Senator Domenici's staff be given the privileges of 
the floor during the debate and discussions of this particular bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Gorton of Washington State and Senator Boren of Oklahoma be added as 
cosponsors to the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERREY. If the Senator will yield, I ask unanimous consent to add 
Senator Exon of Nebraska as a cosponsor of this amendment also.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be listed 
as a cosponsor of the underlying bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleagues from 
Montana and Rhode Island for their willingness to work with me on this 
bill. I believe we have come up with a bill that will result in a high 
level of health protection for our citizens because it will help local 
systems devote attention and resources to the most threatening drinking 
water problems.
  I would also like to express my thanks for the commitment, support 
and hard work of my friend from Nebraska, Senator Bob Kerrey.
  I began my involvement in the safe drinking water debate almost 2 
years ago during the Domenici-Chafee debate on the VA-HUD 
appropriations bill. After this debate, I made a concerted effort to 
learn about how the Safe Drinking Water Act was working in Oregon. I 
toured water treatment works in Salem and Aurora. I asked water system 
operators in Oregon to write me, and I received over 300 letters about 
the strengths and weaknesses of the current law. Last July, I convened 
a meeting of over 150 State and local officials who implement the Safe 
Drinking Water Act. People in my State were a wealth of information 
about this law and program, and I believe the officials of Oregon have 
done national service in raising and analyzing the strengths and 
weaknesses of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  Mr. President, the problems raised by Oregon operators have been the 
foundation of my involvement in this debate. I want to sincerely thank 
Senator Baucus and Senator Chafee because they not only took the 
concerns of Oregon seriously, but they worked with me to help address 
them.
  The bill before us, with the inclusion of the manager's amendment and 
the Kerrey-Hatfield amendment, addresses the major concerns raised by 
my State. I would like to take a moment to outline the concerns raised 
by Oregon and discuss how the bill before the Senate addresses them.


                     selection of new contaminants

  One of the most frequently cited problems with the current law is 
that in the 1986 reauthorization, Congress required EPA to regulate 25 
new contaminants every 3 years, whether they need to or not. I received 
hundreds of comments on this provision, and I believe the problem was 
best described in a letter from Edward Olson, manager of the Medford 
water system which serves more than 80,000 people:

       By mandating quotas, the ability to set meaningful water 
     quality standards is compromised. It forces EPA to set a 
     specific number of standards within the 3 year period without 
     a sound scientific basis * * * All this does is add to the 
     cost of water without any health benefits.

  The bill before us eliminates this requirement and replaces it with a 
requirement that EPA study seven contaminants every 5 years, then make 
an independent decision about regulation. This change will provide 
tremendous relief to EPA, States and water systems.


                            risk assessment

  Citizens of Oregon want to know that the contaminants EPA decides to 
regulate actually pose a health risk. They feel that the process of 
regulation is too often divorced from sound scientific evidence of risk 
from a contaminant.
  The manager's amendment requires EPA to use good science and assess 
the risk of contaminants before proceeding with regulation. This will 
help EPA pursue regulations of the substances in drinking water that 
pose the greatest threat to human health.


                cost-benefit analysis (standard setting)

  Nearly everyone I have spoken to in Oregon is concerned that EPA sets 
standards for contaminants at a level that is unrelated to the level of 
health protection secured for the cost.
  Jim Adamson, the Public Works Director from Baker City, which serves 
almost 10,000 people puts it this way:

       More consideration should be given to the cost/benefit 
     ratio to abate some of the risks that are very slight or 
     maybe only have the potential of a very slight risk.

  Small systems need consideration of risk even more than larger ones. 
Or, as Frank and Nell Kuonen of the tiny, 40-connection, Tingley Lake 
Estates system put it:

       Everyone wants safe drinking water, but the EPA has 
     completely lost sight of a reasonable cost/benefit ratio. The 
     projection of Phase II regulator costs of $10,000 per well is 
     a staggering $30,000 for us; or $750 per household per year.

  The bill, as amended by the Manager's amendment, requires EPA to 
assess the amount of health risk reduction and the compliance cost of a 
proposed regulation. After this analysis, EPA may set the standard at a 
less stringent level if the costs can be substantially reduced and the 
health risk is not increased significantly.
  This is a critical element of reauthorization because it will create 
a tighter and more explicit relationship between regulations, health 
protection of the costs of compliance. I strongly commend Senators 
Baucus and Chafee for helping solve this thorny issue.


                           monitoring burden

  Oregonians have complained that they monitor for contaminants that 
have never been in their water. By ignoring differences among areas, we 
force local systems to devote resources to contaminants they do not 
have. This takes vital resources from real problems. Joanne Dalziel of 
the city of Garibaldi which serves around 200 households stated it 
simply:

       We do not share the same problems with Florida and Idaho 
     and should not be subjected to the same regulations.

  Daniel Bradley of the city of Salem, with a water system serving 
nearly 100,000 people, was even more specific:

       A vast amount of information has been submitted since the 
     inception of the SDWA * * *. The Environmental Protection 
     Agency should use this information to determine the areas 
     that need monitoring of contaminants specific to those areas, 
     and exclude areas that are not susceptible to contamination.

  The amendment that Senator Kerrey and I offered--and that was 
graciously accepted by the Managers--is designed to fix this problem. 
State drinking water programs will be permitted to design monitoring 
programs that are appropriate to conditions faced by their State.


                        small system flexibility

  In Oregon, I learned that small systems are particularly hard hit by 
many of the current Safe Drinking Water Act regulations because they do 
not have the economies of scale of a large city.
  As the board of directors of the Country View Estates system, which 
serves 39 households explains:

       Due to the inability of small systems to spread the massive 
     costs of the testing requirements to a large number of 
     consumers, the operation of such systems will be economically 
     unfeasible. It is our view that this will defeat the very 
     purpose of the act.

  The bill as amended addresses this problem in several ways. First, 
there is specific monitoring relief for small systems. Moreover, 
systems serving less than 10,000 people are eligible for a streamlined 
variance process and a small system technology program. A number of 
other flexibility provisions are included in the bill for small 
systems, including money for a circuit rider assistance program.


                          sufficient resources

  Oregonians have told me that the regulations governing drinking water 
are technical and expensive. In addition, GAO reported last year that 
State programs are underfunded.
  To begin to solve this problem, the bill authorizes a $599 million 
State revolving loan fund. The money for this loan fund has already 
been appropriated, subject to this authorization. In addition, S. 2019 
more than doubles the public water system supervision grants to States 
for administration of drinking water programs. The bill also provides 
for technical assistance, and the monitoring relief and slow down of 
regulations should help States and local systems gain headway on their 
resource needs.


                               conclusion

  I strongly urge the Senate to support this bill as amended by the 
manager's amendment and the Kerrey-Hatfield amendment. These provisions 
strengthen the Safe Drinking Water Act, not because they make the act 
more rigid and stringent but because they will help us--in Congress, at 
EPA, in the States and in every local water system--focus drinking 
water resources on the most pressing problems and on the biggest 
threats to health.
  Mr. President, I would be remiss if I ended my remarks without noting 
the commitment of several other Senators. In addition to the work of 
Senators Kerrey, Chafee, and Baucus, I do not think we could have come 
this far without the work of Senators Domenici. He and his staff have 
done a tremendous job of delineating and advocating for these issues. I 
also appreciate the contributions of Senators Warner, Kempthorne, 
Conrad, Daschle, Gorton, DeConcini, Boren, Exon, Nickles, Dorgan, 
Simpson, Smith, and Brown. They and their staffs have participated in 
innumerable discussions of these issues and have helped resolve many of 
the crucial questions.
  Mr. President, I want to indicate that this amendment that Senator 
Kerrey of Nebraska and I have sponsored is done on the simple, 
fundamental basis that we want to make this bill, the underlying bill, 
the most workable, the most practical, and the most enforceable bill 
possible. In no way do we seek to weaken the current bill as reported 
by the committee.
  In fact, we are indebted to the leadership of the committee for their 
long cooperation in working out some of the problems that have emerged 
since 1974 when I was privileged to have voted for the original bill. 
Here we are 20 years later, to update that statute on the basis of our 
experience over the last 20 years. We are here to strengthen the 
statute and to make certain that we achieve the goal of safe drinking 
water for all of the citizens of this country.
  Mr. President, Senator Kerrey has outlined the details of the 
amendment, which has two parts: one dealing with viability and the 
other with monitoring. He has outlined the amendment in very accurate 
detail, and there is no requirement for me at this particular hour to 
go over the same data and the same explanations. I will have that 
presented in my written statement.
  But I would like to briefly outline a part of this bill that relates 
to philosophy, and I use the term philosophy rather broadly. In 1974, 
like many times when we in this body blaze new trails with legislation, 
when we create a new legislative role for the Congress of the United 
States, we often seek uniform coverage for all 50 States. During these 
efforts, we look at standards, we look at criteria, and we look at 
regulations that would apply to all 50 States, of course, in a uniform 
manner.
  But, at the same time, we have learned that many States are not 
similar. Although each has a similar expectation of safe drinking 
water, the geography, the terrain, the climate--all factors to be 
considered--do vary widely among our States. In this amendment, we hope 
to adopt a little more flexibility to recognize that those distinctions 
exist.

  Why should a local water district in the State of Oregon repeatedly 
monitor for a contaminant that only exists in Florida? And yet, because 
of the standardization of these national listings, all States have to 
do this particular monitoring under current law.
  In this effort to create flexibility, recognizing the diversity of 
the States, the committee bill has taken a major forward step toward 
recognizing that flexibility is required to effectively administer such 
a program in an efficient, effective, reasonable, and practical way.
  Our amendment seeks to expand on the flexibility factor that the 
committee has already adopted.
  I recall that 2 years ago, as we considered the VA-HUD appropriations 
bill, an informative debate on this floor between Senator Domenici of 
New Mexico and Senator Chafee of Rhode Island brought this issue into 
sharp focus. That debate very obviously raised the question as to the 
effectiveness and wisdom of the current Safe Drinking Water Act 
structure. That debate triggered the interest of all Senators.
  Soon afterward, I went home to my State and proceeded to develop a 
plan by which I was going to become better informed on the details of 
the problems with this statute that I knew confronted all States, not 
just mine. I convened an ad hoc conference of about 150 State and local 
officials responsible for drinking water. They provided a great deal of 
data and insight. They were very good tutors on this subject as it 
relates to my State.
  I also took the time to visit various types of water districts--small 
and large cities and viable and non-viable systems.
  I received hundreds of thoughtful letters from citizens all over my 
State indicating their ideas and concerns. First of all, they indicated 
they wanted safe drinking water, but they also expressed concerns about 
problems that prevented them from achieving this goal.
  I want to say that over the last 3 months, because we have a large 
conference room, the Lincoln Room, which has a large conference table, 
we have hosted meetings of staff in relation to this legislation. And 
so 20 Senators here in this body and their staffs, from time to time 
would gather over this 3-month period to compare notes and to consider 
what we could do to resolve the lingering issues.
  I want to say that the managers of the bill, Senator Baucus and 
Senator Chafee, and their staffs, were fully involved, fully supportive 
of this effort to try to build up a consensus. My objective has been to 
be helpful in resolving the problems and at the same time not in any 
way diminish our commitment to safe water. I think that that has been 
accomplished.
  But, you see, that also demonstrates a point of philosophy which I 
want to raise: How much more we can achieve through collaboration, 
consensus building, rather than when we take the other alternative of 
ramming something through because we have the votes.
  I think this bill establishes that same kind of philosophy. We must 
work with, collaborate with and cooperate with the State and local 
entities throughout this country, rather than saying to them, ``This is 
the mandate and we have the power of law to require it.''
  I think this bill incorporates the philosophy that we can achieve far 
more by sitting down with State and local water officials and saying, 
``We have a common goal. How can we best relate our individual roles 
and responsibilities to achieve that goal through collaboration?''
  I think you will find that in the two-part amendment which Senator 
Kerrey and I are offering at this time, we have achieved a further step 
toward the flexibility factors and toward the philosophy of 
collaborating and not commanding.
  In no way does it diminish our goal. In no way does it diminish our 
commitment. In every way, it increases the possibility of achieving the 
goal. And that is the approach that Senator Kerrey and I have taken on 
this.
  Again, I want to say that it has been a great privilege to work with 
my colleagues and their staffs who have been concerned about the same 
issue, and to work with the committee and the committee staff in 
addressing these concerns. Because the committee members had these same 
problems in their respective States, the committee was very open and 
very anxious to resolve these differences and to bring about a stronger 
bill for the achievement of our common goal.
  I thank the committee and I thank the leadership of the committee. 
And I thank my colleagues, Senator Baucus and Senator Chafee, for their 
superb leadership in bringing this bill to the floor.
  It was a great pleasure to work in tandem with Senator Kerrey of 
Nebraska on this. It is a pleasure to work with him on any issue. It 
has been a pleasure working with him and his staff on this issue.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to be added as a cosponsor.
  I want to say, I watched this bill come forward. I think the Senator 
deserves, together with his colleagues, Senator Kerrey and the Senator 
from Louisiana, great credit, because their amendment, I think, made it 
possible for this bill to become law.
  Had this not been solved through the work of our distinguished 
managers, the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Rhode Island, 
and the Senator from Oregon, it would not have happened.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I welcome the Senator's cosponsorship of 
our amendment. I ask unanimous consent that he be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Nebraska and the Senator from Oregon is a very good amendment. As has 
been indicated, the Senators from Oregon and Nebraska have worked 
diligently with other Senators and with the committee to work out some 
wrinkles that did occur as a consequence of the committee bill.
  I must say, Mr. President, the committee bill was approved out of the 
committee with a very, very large vote. I think it was unanimous. Every 
member of the committee voted for this bill. I see Senator Smith from 
New Hampshire on the floor, who also helped very much to come up with a 
consensus, a good approach.
  The amendment that the Senators are offering addresses two very 
important concepts of the bill. One is monitoring requirements and the 
second is the viability of small systems.
  We, Mr. President, have heard from small systems, in particular. The 
small water systems in our country are many. Most of the systems in 
this country are very small. I think about 87 percent of the water 
systems in this country serve fewer than 3,300 people. They are small 
systems.
  On the other hand, most Americans get drinking water from large 
systems; that is, most Americans live in cities which have large 
systems.
  As a consequence, and because of the laws of the economies of scale, 
small systems--that is, smaller communities--pay much more to meet the 
monitoring costs and the treatment costs to provide good, clean, safe 
water for their communities, compared with the cost per household to 
provide the same clean, safe water in larger cities.
  Therein lies a major problem and therein lies a major impetus for 
this bill. And therein lies the reason for this amendment.
  The committee bill directly addresses the problems of small systems 
in many ways, including monitoring.
  I will not go into great detail, but I do want to make it very clear 
that, No. 1, small systems have very great problems. I might say, Mr. 
President, that, on average, a household served by a large system will 
have to pay about $12 per year to meet the requirements of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act. On the other hand, people who live in very small 
communities, to meet the same requirements, would have to pay about 
$145 per year. That is about a 14-fold increase for small systems 
compared with large systems. So it is not fair to people who live in 
rural areas. They cannot come up with the money. They cannot afford the 
monitoring requirements, the technology requirements, and other 
requirements.
  So we are dramatically changing the standards that apply to smaller 
communities. First of all, we are dramatically reducing the monitoring 
requirements. Monitoring is the biggest cost facing small communities. 
It is very, very expensive.
  Currently, all communities must monitor for all the contaminants, 
regardless of whether the monitoring detects a violation or detects the 
contaminant. And the monitoring basically occurs on a quarterly basis 
in 1 year of every 3.
  I do not think it makes much sense to continue to monitor if there is 
no contaminant. So we say in the bill: OK, after you have monitored 
once and if there is no showing of the contaminant, you need not go 
back and monitor again for another 3 years. It only makes sense. In 
addition to that, however, the Senator from Nebraska and the Senator 
from Oregon are further refining the State waiver program for 
monitoring. A number of States have applied to the EPA to enact waiver 
programs. That is a program where they put their own monitoring 
requirements in depending upon the various different conditions in 
their States.
  States are not homogeneous. States are different. I might say, the 
results for those States is dramatic. That is, for those States who 
have taken advantage of the waiver program, they have found dramatic 
monitoring savings. Let me just state, for example, Wisconsin has a $16 
million saving over 3 years, Massachusetts a $15 million saving over 3 
years, Michigan a $36 million--90 percent saving in Michigan. That is, 
if Michigan had not applied for a waiver under the monitoring program--
that is Michigan set up its own monitoring program depending upon 
different conditions in Michigan, set fees in Michigan--it would be 
paying 90 percent more than it now is.
  The amendment before us is one where we are trying to add even 
greater flexibility and reasonableness to the State waiver program so 
States can more easily apply to EPA and get approval from EPA on 
enacting their State waiver programs. That is the only point of this.
  There are other parts of this amendment, but we are trying to help 
States, if you will, do their own thing, provide a good, solid 
monitoring program that is tailored to and fits conditions in their own 
States. That is why I think this is a good amendment.
  The second major point is viability. Some systems are just not 
viable. That is, they are so small or because of certain conditions 
they really cannot do a very good job in coming up with, not only 
monitoring, but the treatment they need. We are suggesting, therefore, 
that those nonviable systems be encouraged to consolidate. Where there 
is greater consolidation, then there is a greater ability for systems 
to meet the provisions of the act. If they cannot consolidate, maybe 
they can share some resources. Again, we are trying to address that 
very fundamental, iron law of the economies of scale by encouraging 
more consolidation. By encouraging more cooperation, we are going to 
help systems better meet the provisions of the act.
  Essentially, the amendment encourages States to develop viability 
programs. That is a good idea. In the earlier versions, we required 
States to develop powers to require systems to consolidate. That was a 
bit strong, a bit draconian. We, here, are saying you do not have to 
require communities to consolidate or become more viable. Rather, you 
as a State should have a program in place that encourages more 
nonviable systems to become viable.
  I very much commend the Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from 
Oregon for their offering this amendment. It is a major improvement 
upon the bill.
  If there is no further discussion, Mr. President, I urge the Senate 
to adopt the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1699) was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to share 
my concerns over this proposed legislation. First, I'd like to say that 
when compared to other countries around the world, the United States 
has some of the safest drinking water in the world. A survey of our 
Nation's 200,000 public water systems indicate that few systems are 
contaminated--even by our own strict standards.
  Kentucky is made up of 120 agriculturally diverse counties, and 
within those counties are hundreds of small communities, most of which 
rely heavily on agriculture as their main source of income. There are 
more than 91,000 farm families in Kentucky. These people seek out the 
best ways to grow corn and soybeans, raise the healthiest livestock, 
and provide our Nation with healthy, nutritious food. And it is through 
the hard work and determination of these people that others are fed.
  I am supportive of protecting that quality of our drinking water. 
Unfortunately, many provisions in this bill will be detrimental to 
those people who work hard every day to feed the rest of us, yet 
provide little, if any, workable formulas to protect the water. I am 
most concerned about the bill's source water protection provisions. 
Source water protection has traditionally been a function of the Clean 
Water Act, which provides the framework for protection of surface 
waters. I am concerned about the manner in which this bill addresses 
source water protection. The Safe Drinking Water Act should not be used 
as the vehicle to disrupt or interfere with ongoing progress in the 
watershed area.
  This proposed source water protection program in S. 2019 would have 
serious implications for farm operations upstream of municipalities. 
Individual municipalities nationwide could issue mandates to landowners 
in source water protection areas for the control of both regulated and 
unregulated contaminants. Not only would this lead to the overlap of 
numerous governmental authorities and programs, but it would create a 
confusion of water regulations across the country. Municipalities 
should not be able to supersede State authority and expertise. Yet they 
are encouraged by S. 2019 to do this.
  Under S. 2019, local water systems would be eligible for important 
cost saving reductions in required monitoring if they develop a source 
water protection plan that: Defines the boundaries of their source 
water areas, even if that goes beyond the system's territory and for 
many miles upstream; identifies sources of pollution, both point and 
nonpoint, regardless of their expertise to carry out such a task; and 
implements control measures over the identified sources of pollution.

  Finger pointing and restrictive control measures could likely be the 
unintended result, since failure of an individual plan to include any 
one of these requirements may result in its disapproval by the EPA. 
Without an approved plan, water systems would not be eligible for cost-
saving reductions in the frequency of required monitoring. This is the 
trap in S. 2019's source water protection provisions. There are more:
  If a system's source water protection area is beyond its service 
territory, a plan may mandate controls without the consultation of 
neighboring local governments or adjacent landowners. Confusions among 
source water protection plans could impose costly restrictions on the 
use of surface waters or limitations on traditional land use 
activities.
  Under the bill, States must review and approve these source water 
protection plans or face stiff financial penalties. States have no 
authority to require modifications to a plan that may have unwarranted 
economic impacts. Without specific authority, a State will be reluctant 
to seek revisions or disapprove a plan for fear of penalties from EPA.
  In addition to these principal concerns, I have other problems with 
the bill as written. Unfunded mandates were imposed by the 1986 
amendments, because of the funding shortfalls States and municipalities 
faced. This issue has not been resolved. The EPA defines small systems 
as those serving fewer than 3,300 individuals. Eighty-seven percent of 
water systems in Kentucky meet this definition. Kentucky has 616 small 
water systems that service a population of 467,680. We have 6 counties 
with more than 20 different small water systems. These rural systems 
have had the most difficulty meeting Federal drinking water 
requirements. These systems do not have adequate financial and 
technical resources to devote to treatment and monitoring. According to 
EPA, for systems serving 25 to 100 persons, the average annual 
incremental household cost of compliance is $145 per year.
  On the issue of standard setting, the EPA Administrator may have even 
less flexibility to consider public health risk reduction benefits, 
costs, and scientific information than under current law. I am also 
concerned that the definition of public water systems could be 
interpreted to cover crop irrigation delivery systems.
  Overall, I am worried that the bill authorizes EPA to initiate 
enforcement actions in States without providing the State with an 
opportunity to initiate its own action. Kentucky has recently enacted 
its own legislation to improve and monitor its water resources.
  Kentucky's recently approved water quality legislation sets up a 
strategy for agricultural producers to protect Kentucky's water 
resources and establish a process to work with farmers on water 
pollution issues. Appropriate agencies will assist farmers in 
developing plans to protect water, and guarantees fair treatment of 
agricultural producers by enforcement personnel. The bill moves 
Kentucky's water quality programs away from a punitive approach toward 
a technology-driven program that enables farmers to do what they do 
best--produce food and fiber--without doing harm to the environment.
  Key responsibilities under Kentucky's plan include:
  Evaluating and modifying the best management practices to promote 
water protection.
  Developing statewide agriculture water quality plans within two 
years.
  Reviewing water quality data to help identify priority areas.
  Plans will consist of practical, economical management practices 
designed to prevent pollution from animal waste, pesticides, sediment, 
and other sources such as fuel tanks. The statewide plan would also 
recognize the regional differences in Kentucky and account for the 
varying agriculture and sensitive groundwater areas. The time for 
implementing the plan is 5 years.
  I commend those Kentuckians involved in taking the initiative to 
develop the agriculture water quality program. They have set forth a 
strategy for agriculture producers to protect Kentucky's water 
resources and work out water pollution issues. Now we need to let that 
same strategy work in the Clean Water Act at the national level.
  In conclusion, although I support the goals of the safe drinking 
water bill, it is important we work to build consensus on standards. In 
carrying out these solutions we must provide realistic funding levels 
so as not to cause undue hardship on States and municipalities.
  I am very concerned about the potential adverse impact that this bill 
will have on my crop production and livestock producers. I am also 
disturbed about the potential overlap of numerous governmental 
authorities and programs, creating confusion of water regulations all 
over Kentucky and the country.
  Most of these problems can be addressed by reworking section 9 of the 
bill, and I support the amendment of Senators Warner and Conrad to 
accomplish that. I urge my colleagues to take a hard look at the 
unintended consequences this bill will have, and let us work together 
to pass a safe drinking water bill that is also safe for rural America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I see two other Senators seeking 
recognition. It is my intention at this time to lay down an amendment 
sponsored by myself and the distinguished Senator from North Dakota 
[Mr. Conrad], unless some Senator desires--fine.


                           Amendment No. 1700

   (Purpose: To authorize States to establish a source water quality 
  protection petition procedure to assist community water systems and 
municipal and local governments to address drinking water contaminants 
                       of public health concern)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself and Mr. 
     Conrad, proposes an amendment numbered 1700.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Beginning on page 94, strike line 10 and all that follows 
     through page 103, line 2, and insert the following:

     SEC. 9. WATER QUALITY PROTECTION PARTNERSHIP.

       (a) Source Water Quality Protection.--Part B (42 U.S.C. 
     300g et seq.) (as amended by section 8) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:


                   ``SOURCE WATER QUALITY PROTECTION

       ``Sec. 1420. (a) Source Water Quality Protection Petition 
     Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--A State may establish a program under 
     which an owner or operator of a community water system of the 
     State, or a municipal or local government or political 
     subdivision of the government in the State, may submit a 
     water quality protection petition to the State requesting 
     that the State assist in addressing--
       ``(i) the origins of drinking water contaminants of public 
     health concern, including to the extent practicable the 
     specific activities that affect the drinking water supply of 
     a community; and
       ``(ii) the financial or technical limitations that impair 
     the ability of a community water system to provide drinking 
     water that complies with a national primary drinking water 
     regulation for--

       ``(I) a contaminant listed under this title; or
       ``(II) an unregulated contaminant for which the 
     Administrator has determined that there is an urgent threat 
     to public health pursuant to section 1412(b)(3)(G).

       ``(B) Funding.--The State may provide assistance in 
     response to the petition using funds referred to in 
     subsections (b)(2)(C) and (c).
       ``(2) Goal.--The objective of a petition submitted under 
     this subsection shall be to seek assistance from the State in 
     directing or redirecting resources under Federal or State 
     water quality programs to establish voluntary, incentive-
     based partnerships in order to address the origins of 
     drinking water contaminants of public health concern, 
     including to the extent practicable the specific activities 
     that affect the drinking water supply of a community.
       ``(3) Contents of petition.--A petition submitted under 
     this subsection shall, at a minimum--
       ``(A) include a delineation of the source water area in the 
     State that is the subject of the petition;
       ``(B) identify the origins of the drinking water 
     contaminants of public health concern, including to the 
     extent practicable the specific activities in the source 
     water area delineated under subparagraph (A);
       ``(C) identify any deficiencies in information that will 
     inhibit the identification of significant origins of drinking 
     water contaminants of public health concern; and
       ``(D) identify any public participation solicited from 
     affected persons in the source water area delineated under 
     subparagraph (A), including--
       ``(i) voluntary efforts to address the origins of the 
     drinking water contaminants of public health concern, 
     including specific activities; and
       ``(ii) the assistance that may be needed to facilitate the 
     efforts.
       ``(b) Approval or Disapproval of Petitions.--
       ``(1) In general.--After providing notice and an 
     opportunity for public comment on a petition submitted under 
     subsection (a), the State shall approve or disapprove in 
     whole or in part the petition in an expeditious manner.
       ``(2) Approval.--The State may approve a petition if the 
     petition meets the requirements established under subsection 
     (a). The notice of approval shall, at a minimum, include--
       ``(A) a determination that the drinking water contaminants 
     referred to in the petition pose a public health concern;
       ``(B) a description of the options available, including 
     voluntary measures and practices for the protection of source 
     waters to address the problems described in the petition;
       ``(C) an identification of technical or financial 
     assistance that the State will provide to assist in 
     addressing the drinking water contaminants of public health 
     concern based on--
       ``(i) the relative priority of the public health concern 
     identified in the petition as compared to the other water 
     quality needs identified by the State;
       ``(ii) any appropriate studies or assessments that are 
     available to identify significant origins of drinking water 
     contaminants of public health concern;
       ``(iii) any necessary coordination that the State will 
     perform of the program established under this section with 
     programs implemented or planned by other States under this 
     section; and
       ``(iv) funds available (including funds available from a 
     State revolving loan fund established under title VI of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) 
     or part G) and the appropriate distribution of the funds to 
     assist in addressing the problems described in the petition;
       ``(D) a description of Federal and State programs available 
     to assist in addressing the problems described in the 
     petition, including--
       ``(i) any program established under the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.);
       ``(ii) the program established under section 6217 of the 
     Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (16 
     U.S.C. 1455b);
       ``(iii) the agricultural water quality protection program 
     established under chapter 2 of subtitle D of title XII of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838 et seq.);
       ``(iv) the sole source aquifer protection program 
     established under section 1427;
       ``(v) the community wellhead protection program established 
     under section 1428;
       ``(vi) any pesticide or ground water management plan; and
       ``(vii) any abandoned well closure program;
       ``(E) a description of activities that will be undertaken 
     to coordinate Federal and State programs to respond to the 
     petition; and
       ``(F) a description of alternative management measures or 
     treatment techniques and other strategies, including an 
     evaluation of the costs associated with each alternative, and 
     a description of sources of funding available to implement 
     the alternative.
       ``(3) Disapproval.--If the State disapproves a petition 
     submitted under subsection (a), the State shall notify the 
     entity submitting the petition in writing of the reasons for 
     disapproval. A petition may be resubmitted at any time if new 
     information becomes available or conditions affecting the 
     source water that is the subject of the petition change.
       ``(c) Eligibility for Water Quality Protection 
     Assistance.--A sole source aquifer plan developed pursuant to 
     section 1427, a wellhead protection plan developed pursuant 
     to section 1428, and a source water quality protection 
     measure assisted in response to a petition submitted under 
     subsection (a) shall be eligible for assistance under the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), 
     including assistance provided under section 319 and title VI 
     of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1329 and 1381 et seq.), in the same 
     manner as a project, measure, or practice identified in a 
     State plan under such section 319 is eligible for assistance 
     under such Act. In the case of funds made available under 
     such section 319 to assist a source water quality protection 
     measure in response to a petition submitted under subsection 
     (a), the funds may be used only for a measure that addresses 
     nonpoint source pollution.
       ``(d) Grants to Support State Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator is authorized to make 
     grants to each State that establishes a program under this 
     section that is approved under paragraph (2). The amount of 
     each grant shall not exceed 50 percent of the cost of 
     administering the petition program for the year in which the 
     grant is available.
       ``(2) Approval.--As a condition of receiving grant 
     assistance under this subsection, a State shall submit to the 
     Administrator for approval a source water protection petition 
     program that is consistent with the guidance published under 
     paragraph (3).
       ``(3) Guidance.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Administrator shall publish 
     guidance to assist States in the development of a source 
     water protection petition program. The guidance shall, at a 
     minimum--
       ``(A) recommend procedures for the approval by a State of a 
     source water protection petition submitted under subsection 
     (a);
       ``(B) recommend procedures by which a community water 
     system may submit a source water protection petition 
     developed under subsection (a);
       ``(C) recommend criteria for the delineation of source 
     water protection areas within a State; and
       ``(D) describe sources of funding that are available to 
     develop and respond to source water protection petitions.
       ``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection 
     such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 1995 
     through 2000. Each State with a program approved under 
     paragraph (2) shall receive an equitable portion of the funds 
     available for any fiscal year.''.
                                  ____

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment which is a 
substitute for section 9 of the committee bill relating to source water 
protection plans.
  I also ask unanimous consent that a letter from various organizations 
who have endorsed this amendment be included in the Record at the end 
of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. [See 
exhibit 1.]
  Mr. WARNER. These organizations include the American Farm Bureau 
Federation, the National Agricultural Chemicals Association, the 
National Water Resources Association, the Clean Water Industry 
Coalition, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, and many 
others.
  This is one of the most remarkable, grassroots collection of 
organizations that I have seen. This shows that those individuals and 
organizations which support their individual trade associations--these 
associations can deliver. And this is a clear product of the 
consolidated efforts of this broad, grass roots American coalition of 
organizations. I commend each of them.
  Mr. President, during the Environment Committee's markup of this 
legislation, several concerns were raised regarding the proposed new 
source water protection program and its reach into the management of 
land use practices.
  In the interest of enacting reform legislation this year to provide 
the relief so desperately needed by our local governments, I voted to 
report the bill from the Environment Committee.
  Since that time, I have explored with my friend from North Dakota 
[Mr. Conrad,] possible alternatives to provide for the protection of 
waters that are used to supply drinking water.
  While recognizing the potential benefits from an approach to reduce 
contaminants that enter our surface waters, we believed that a 
partnership could be formed among water agencies, agricultural 
interests, and others without mandating a new Federal requirement of 
imposing penalties on our States.
  I am pleased that the amendment we offer establishes a cooperative, 
voluntary process involving States, local governments, and landowners 
that will, for the first time, focus needed attention and resources on 
specific problems associated with waters that affect a community's 
drinking water supply.
  With Chairman Baucus's and Senator Chafee's cooperation and 
constructive contributions to accomplish the goals we all share in this 
effort, our amendment will achieve results in protecting our source 
waters by facilitating a dialog among interested parties in a watershed 
and building upon voluntary programs to address sources of point and 
nonpoint pollution.
  I want to make it very clear to my colleagues that this amendment 
encourages the voluntary participation by States and local governments 
in identifying measures and financial resources that may be utilized to 
provide for the protection of drinking water supplies.
  The petition process established in the amendment is a solution based 
approach for our local governments. In developing a petition, a 
community water system will bring together various persons who depend 
on source waters and those whose activities may affect source waters in 
an effort to gain a better understanding of the specific needs within a 
watershed.
  I firmly believe this collaborative effort at the local level, with 
resources from a State, will produce results to reduce the burden on 
localities to install expensive treatment technologies.
  Specifically, a local government or community water system can submit 
a petition to a State which identifies contaminants of public health 
concern in source waters and the voluntary efforts that are being 
employed to reduce the ability of these contaminants to enter our 
rivers and streams.
  In response to a petition, a State may provide technical and 
financial resources which will help address problems identified in the 
petition. It is important to mention that the redirection of existing 
funding sources is critical to the success of this program.
  I am pleased that provisions are included in this amendment to 
provide funding from the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund because 
I believe that responses to problems identified in petitions will be 
less costly than the installation of expensive treatment technologies.
  Mr. President, the available of funding to respond to these local 
petitions is an essential element of this petition program. It is my 
hope that the provisions relating to funding will be preserved when the 
Senate goes to conference with the House.
  The last point I would like to mention, Mr. President, is the grant 
authority this amendment provides to the Environmental Protection 
Agency. In an effort to provide an incentive for States to respond to 
petitions in a timely manner, EPA is authorized to make grants to 
States pending the approval of a State's petition program.
  Mr. President, before concluding, I must recognize and commend 
Chairman Baucus and Senator Chafee for their diligent efforts to 
resolve the differences of opinion on this issue and to develop a 
compromise that fosters a cooperative relationship among various 
parties to become allies in the fight for drinking water protection.
  In Virginia, we have been firsthand the benefits of this partnership 
approach through the 13 years of the Chesapeake Bay Program--a regional 
partnership between the Federal Government, Virginia, Maryland, 
Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia, and the varied interests 
who depend on the bay for their livelihood and recreation. In the bay 
watershed, more than 300,000 acres of agricultural land are now farmed 
under the Chesapeake Bay Program nutrient reduction initiatives, 
erosion control, and runoff measures.
  Mr. President, I would also like to commend the chairman and ranking 
member, and their staffs, and the enormous contributions made by 
Senator Hatfield and Senator Kerrey, for bringing to the Senate a bill 
that responds to the legitimate problems brought to our attention by 
our States and local governments.
  This legislation restores the balance in our obligation to provide 
water that is safe for citizens to drink with the financial and 
technical limitations on local governments to install technologies to 
treat drinking water, and I am pleased to lend my support to this 
legislation.
  When the committee began discussions on developing a bill for markup, 
there were many forceful discussions about the direction the committee 
should take. Through a very cooperative and inclusive process, Chairman 
Baucus listened to our concerns and demonstrated his significant skill 
and leadership to develop a bill that responded to those issues.
  Prior to bringing this important legislation to the floor, the 
chairman and ranking member continued to listen to other points of view 
and responded in a manner that allows us to be here today. I am 
grateful for their willingness to accommodate our concerns and commend 
them for their continued leadership on the committee.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                     May 12, 1994.
     Hon. John W. Warner,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner, this week the Senate will consider S. 
     2019, the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994, 
     introduced last year as S. 1547 by Environment and Public 
     Works Committee Chairman Max Baucus. We would like to offer 
     our support for the compromise amendment that you have 
     cosponsored with Senator Kent Conrad as a substitute for 
     Section 9 of S. 2019.
       This is an important amendment, broadly supported by 
     coalitions and organizations representing municipal, water 
     suppliers, agriculture, agribusiness, food processors, 
     livestock production, municipal groups, industry and other 
     stakeholders. The amendment allows a state to establish a 
     source water quality petition program which:
       Encourage a drinking water authority or local government 
     entity to submit a petition requesting that the state assist 
     in addressing financial or technical limitations that reduce 
     the petitioner's capability to provide drinking water that 
     complies with national drinking water standards or to address 
     unregulated contaminants that pose an urgent threat to public 
     health;
       Provides for state response in the form of financial and 
     technical assistance as may be appropriate under existing 
     water quality programs, such as those in place under the 
     Clean Water Act and other state, regional or federal water 
     quality programs;
       Authorizes federal grants as an incentive for states to 
     initiate a petition program; and
       Relies on voluntary, incentive-based partnerships among all 
     affected parties.
       We thank you for your constructive and effective leadership 
     in working with the Environment and Public Works Committee 
     leadership on this important issue. We believe the compromise 
     amendment provides a workable mechanism, to help accomplish 
     the end goal of improving our nation's drinking water, while 
     addressing many serious concerns about provisions of Section 
     9 in S. 2019.
           Sincerely,
         Agricultural Retailers Association; AK Steel 
           Incorporation; American Bakers Association; American 
           Cyanamid; American Farm Bureau Federation; American 
           Feed Industry Association; American Forest and Paper 
           Association; American Frozen Food Institute; American 
           Soybean Association; Association of California Water 
           Agencies; Automotive Recyclers Association; Bethlehem 
           Steel; Biscuit and Cracker Manufacturers Association; 
           Callispell Chamber of Commerce; Central Valley Project 
           Water Association; CF Industries Inc.; Chocolate 
           Manufacturers Association; Clean Water industry 
           Coalition; Dairymen, Inc.; Egg Association of America; 
           Greater Cleveland Growth Association; Independent 
           Bakers Association; International Dairy Foods 
           Association; Maine Sardine Council; MDU Resources 
           Group, Inc.; Metropolitan Water District of Southern 
           California; National Agricultural Chemicals 
           Association; National Association of Conservation 
           Districts; National Association of State Departments of 
           Agriculture; National Association of Wheat Growers; 
           National Broiler Council; National Cattlemen's 
           Association; National Confectioners Association; 
           National Corn Growers Association; National Cotton 
           Council of America; National Council of Farmer 
           Cooperatives; National Electrical Manufacturers 
           Association; National Farmers Union; National Food 
           Processes Association; National Grange; National Milk 
           Producers Federation; National Pork Producers Council; 
           National Potato Council; National Turkey Federation; 
           National Water Resources Association; Rio Grande Valley 
           Sugar Growers, Inc.; Snack Food Association; The 
           Uniform and Textile Service Association; Unilever 
           United States; United Egg Producers; U.S. Rice 
           Producers' Group; Western Growers Association.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, their legislation restores a balance in 
our obligation to provide safe water for citizens to drink with the 
financial and technical limitations on local governments to install 
technologies to treat drinking water.
  I am pleased to lend my support to their legislation; that is, to 
Senator Hatfield.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I momentarily will ask the amendment to be laid aside.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to laying the amendment 
aside?
  Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  MR. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to proceed as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished Senator will 
allow me to send up another amendment and very quickly act on that.
  MR. BREAUX. I will be happy to yield to my colleague.
  Mr. WARNER. I shall not take but a few minutes, I say to my 
colleague.


                           Amendment No. 1701

  (Purpose: To provide for the funding of capital improvements at the 
                          Washington Aqueduct)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send up an amendment on behalf of myself 
and the distinguished Senator, Mr. Robb, from the Commonwealth of 
Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator's previous 
amendment will be laid aside.
  The clerk will now report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] for himself and Mr. 
     Robb, proposes an amendment numbered 1701.
       In section 16 of the bill, strike subsection (f) and insert 
     the following new subsection:
       (f) Capital Improvements for the Washington Aqueduct.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), 
     and notwithstanding any other provision of law, at the 
     request of the public water supply customers of the 
     Washington Aqueduct--
       (A) the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of 
     Engineers of the Army Corps of Engineers, shall borrow from 
     the Federal Financing Bank such funds as the Secretary of the 
     Army determines are required to finance capital improvements 
     for the Washington Aqueduct; and
       (B) the Board of Directors of the Federal Financing Bank 
     shall loan the funds to the Secretary of the Army on such 
     terms as may be established by the Secretary of the Army and 
     the Board of Directors.
       (2) Interest.--The rate of interest to be charged in 
     connection with a loan made under paragraph (1) shall be not 
     less than a rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, 
     taking into consideration current market yields on 
     outstanding marketable obligations of the United States of 
     comparable maturities.
       (3) Contract.--The Secretary of the Army shall borrow funds 
     under paragraph (1) after the public water supply customers 
     enter into a written contract with the Secretary of the Army 
     to repay the funds and to pay the costs associated with 
     borrowing the funds.
       (4) Net present value of loan.--The Secretary of the Army 
     may borrow funds under paragraph (1) if amounts sufficient to 
     pay for the cost, as defined in section 502(5) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a(5)), of the 
     loan involved are provided in advance in appropriation Acts.
       (5) Definition.--As used in this subsection, the term 
     ``public water supply customers'' means the District of 
     Columbia, the county of Arlington, Virginia, and the city of 
     Falls Church, Virginia.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, how many of us remember this headline in 
our local paper, the Washington Post? What a dramatic headline: ``D.C., 
Part of Northern Virginia Under Drinking Water Alert.''

       By sundown, all the water fountains at National Airport had 
     been shut off. The Environmental Protection Agency yesterday 
     advised people who live and work in the District of 
     Columbia----

The Nation's Capital.

     and parts of the Commonwealth of Virginia to boil all 
     drinking water.

  The alert was put out on the afternoon of December 8. This is the 
paper on the morning of December 9. This prompted me to consult the 
Corps of Engineers and, as a consequence, I ask the Senate to consider 
the amendment that is now pending.
  Mr. President, I rise to offer this amendment which is to allow the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers access to the Federal Financing Bank for 
the purpose of financing capital improvements in the Washington 
aqueduct. The Washington aqueduct is a generic title for that 
infrastructure that provides water for the Nation's Capital and certain 
parts of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
  I would like to also advise my colleagues that I requested the 
General Accounting Office to conduct a study of this entire system, 
given the relationship between this particular water system in the 
United States and the Nation's Capital as it relates to national 
security.
  Mr. President, for 3 days beginning on December 8 of last year, this 
region was nearly crippled when the Environmental Protection Agency--
and I commend the agency for acting--ordered us to cease using the 
water that came through the pipes; to boil water. The paper describes 
the run on all shops that sell bottled water. We take for granted our 
water supply. That is the purpose of this amendment. Let us check it 
out. Some parts of this system date back 100 years, and it is time we 
check it out.
  But this was December 8, and the region was crippled as a consequence 
of this EPA order. Area residents were fearful that their water supply 
was contaminated. They did not know. It was an enormous undertaking for 
local governments to notify everyone in this life-threatening 
situation, and it was described as life-threatening. In no way do I 
fault the alert that came out from the EPA and from other responsible 
civic persons in this area. Imagine the difficulty they had in 
conveying this message to a lot of people in this region who are not 
familiar with the English language. Simple things like that--maybe not 
so simple--of having to convey to a lot of people the problem.
  During this crisis period, and in subsequent news reports, the 
Washington Post--and I credit the Washington Post for a very careful, 
detailed analysis of this problem--the paper educated us on the broader 
problems of the system's financing limitations, the lack of operator 
training, the lack of monitoring systems which provide an early warning 
of potential problems, and lack of coordination among Federal agencies 
responsible.
  The corps since addressed some of these problems, but the question of 
financing major capital improvements, which, in the judgment of the 
Corps of Engineers are needed, remains a problem which I hope will be 
solved by this legislation.
  In reports conducted by the EPA and independent authorities, it has 
been concluded that equipment failure, followed by human error in 
responding to the situation of December 8 affected the results of water 
quality testing. While we are thankful that the water was not 
contaminated in that period by the suspected parasite, cryptosporidium, 
it was a loud wake-up call for the region.
  The modified amendment I offer today addresses issues relating to the 
Congressional Budget Office views concerning the Corps of Engineers' 
borrowing authority for the Washington aqueduct and this provision's 
impact on direct spending.
  I believe those concerns have been resolved in this revised amendment 
by subjecting the amount of the loan discount to appropriations. While 
the essence of the amendment simply provides borrowing authority, the 
cost of making the loans to the Corps of Engineers will be paid for in 
advance by the system's customers.
  So there is a financing arrangement set forth in this amendment which 
will enable this system, which serves the Nation's Capital, to be 
corrected and hopefully to be fixed in a manner that will make it less 
vulnerable to many problems to which it could be subjected under the 
usual circumstances.
  We have letters, which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the 
Record, from the chairman of the Arlington County Board who supports 
it; the Mayor of the city of Falls Church; and the Mayor of Washington, 
the Honorable Sharon Pratt Kelly, all expressing the desperate need to 
have an amendment adopted and the appreciation hopefully to this body 
for accepting the amendment.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       Arlington County, Virginia,


                                   Office of the County Board,

                                       Arlington, VA, May 6, 1994.
     Hon. John W. Warner,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: Thank you for supporting the inclusion 
     of Dalecarlia Water Treatment Plant, or the Washington 
     Aqueduct, language in S. 2019, Safe Drinking Water Act 
     Amendments of 1994. As you know, the language will allow the 
     Army authority to borrow funds in order to finance necessary 
     capital improvements. Consequently, all users of the 
     Washington Aqueduct, including Arlington County, will benefit 
     from the adoption of the legislation.
       Without the financing language, Arlington County, in 
     addition to the City of Falls Church and Fairfax County, 
     would continue to fund its portion of capital improvements on 
     a pay-as-you-go basis. A pay-as-you-go mandate is impractical 
     and would financially burden Aqueduct users.
       Again, thank you for your hard work on this important 
     issue; we are grateful for your continued leadership.
           Sincerely,
                                            Mary Margaret Whipple,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____



                                         City of Falls Church,

                                 Falls Church, VA, April 21, 1994.
     Hon. John W. Warner,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC
       Dear Senator Warner: Thank you for your letter of April 19 
     and the accompanying copy of your amendment to the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act which will enable the Corps of Engineers 
     to obtain funds from the Federal Financing Bank. Improvements 
     proposed at the Washington Aqueduct over the next decade are 
     necessary. The local jurisdictions dependent on the 
     Washington Aqueduct for safe water much appreciate your 
     assistance in sponsoring this legislation.
       If there is any information concerning the necessity for, 
     or the benefits of, this financing mechanism which we can 
     provide, please call.
       With best regards, I am
           Respectfully yours,
                                                Brian M. O'Connor,
                                                            Mayor.
                                  ____



                                     The District of Columbia,

                                   Washington, DC, April 20, 1994.
     Hon. John Warner,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC
       Dear Senator Warner: I am writing to commend and thank you 
     for your efforts in introducing legislation to give the Army 
     Corps of Engineers the authority to borrow from the Federal 
     Financing Bank in order to finance capital improvements to 
     the Washington Aqueduct.
       We in the District of Columbia government are 100% in 
     agreement with your assessment of the Corps' unusual 
     predicament of not being able to borrow money to finance 
     infrastructure improvements. We agree wholeheartedly that in 
     the wake of recent concern over the cleanliness of local 
     drinking water, needed improvements must be made and should 
     be paid for by customers over the life of the new or upgraded 
     facilities.
       I applaud your efforts on behalf of metropolitan area 
     residents. It is my hope that the final version of the 
     legislation will provide, with specificity, that area 
     ratepayers will be protected from short term spikes in rates, 
     and FFB loans will be repaid over the long term useful life 
     of the project, as you stated in your March 24 statement.
       If you or your staff should have any questions of the 
     District, please contact Ms. Mimi Mager, my Director of 
     Congressional and Federal Relations (727-9111). Again, thank 
     you for your leadership on this important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                               Sharon Pratt Kelly.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I again thank the distinguished chairman, 
Mr. Baucus, and the ranking member, Mr. Chafee, for devoting the 
committee's time and attention to this very serious issue.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Mikulski). The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, we have reviewed the amendment of the 
Senator from Virginia and accept it. I might say, this general subject 
must be addressed. The water system in the District of Columbia and 
northern Virginia was built by the corps--the first water system--in 
1853. It is the only water system under the jurisdiction of the Army 
Corps of Engineers--the only one in the whole Nation--in the District 
of Columbia.
  It also happens to be about the only water system that is unable to 
get any financing from the Federal Financing Bank. Other systems can, 
but the system in the District of Columbia cannot because we, 
regrettably, in the past have not given the authority to the corps to 
seek funding from that financing authority.
  We addressed it in the committee, and the Senator from Virginia, a 
very able member of the committee, in fact it was his amendment, his 
idea, helped to get this in the bill. We found there were technical 
glitches with the Budget Committee, and the Senator from Virginia has 
now come up with a better version that addresses those wrinkles that we 
had with the Budget Committee.
  I thank the Senator and commend him.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman and I 
wish to thank the staff of the committee and particularly my staff, 
Mrs. Loomis, who worked tirelessly on the formula, a formula that will 
assist financing and not overburden financially the users of this 
system; that is, the actual user, particularly at home and the offices 
so dependent on this water.
  I thank the Chair. I urge, again, adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment No. 1701.
  The amendment (No. 1701) was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
proceed as if in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Breaux, pertaining to the introduction of S. 2111 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________