[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.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise to discuss an important issue 
which relates to helping meet the needs of certain small, semirural 
communities. These are communities that are slightly too large to 
quality for existing Federal rural water grants for construction of 
wastewater facilities, but are too small, too poor, and unable to 
finance these projects through loans or other alternative financing 
mechanisms.
  I am particularly concerned about unincorporated communities near 
urban centers which face a unique combination of environmental, 
financial, and governmental problems. Households in these areas 
traditionally have relied on septic systems to meet sewage needs. With 
urban growth these communities have expanded. Septic systems which once 
were adequate can no longer accommodate the increasing density. Yet 
these communities lack the tax base and governmental structure needed 
to fund needed infrastructure improvements. They face high system costs 
per household due to their relatively low density, a high percentage of 
residents with lower incomes, and lack of access to grant programs 
intended for very small, rural communities.
  The South Valley, an unincorporated area in Bernalillo County 
adjacent to Albuquerque, NM, is an example of a community I am 
concerned about. It is a semirural community of 4,100 households 
experiencing recent growth. Original homes were constructed with on-
site water wells and septic tanks. However, increasing density, a 
combination of soil characteristics, and a very shallow water table now 
make the area susceptible to groundwater contamination.
  State and local governments are already contributing to finding 
solutions to problems such as in the South Valley. But these funds 
alone cannot meet all needs. Moreover, homeowners in the area have 
already borne the costs of constructing and operating the existing 
septic systems.
  Madam President, I believe--and I have informed the chairman that I 
believe--the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994, which is 
presently pending on the floor, is an appropriate vehicle, or might be 
an appropriate vehicle, for us to include this legislation that I have 
proposed to deal with this problem, to grant authority for grants to be 
made to these small, unincorporated communities.
  Madam President, the Congress appropriated $500 million to assist 
hardship communities. But this funding is to become available only 
following enactment of authorizing legislation.
  In response to the problem, I have had this amendment drafted and 
have discussed it with the chairman of the committee. I introduced the 
amendment as a stand-alone bill last October as Senate bill 1542. And 
the amendment is essentially the same as that legislation.
  I ask the chairman to comment, if he would, on the prospects of 
moving ahead with this amendment and for any thoughts he has as to the 
appropriateness of our going forward. I have not offered the amendment 
to the legislation at this time, but I wanted to explore with him 
whether that was a proper course of action.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, the Senator from New Mexico has 
repeatedly talked to me about this amendment. We have had discussions 
about it. I must say I am very impressed with the intensity with which 
he has pressed this issue many, many times. I think he has a valid 
point. It is a problem that is particularly deep to New Mexico. It is 
one that must be addressed. I say to the Senator that the committee has 
every intention of addressing it.
  The difficulty in facing this, however, is that this is a Safe 
Drinking Water Act. It is not a Clean Water Act. I thank the Senator 
for not pressing his amendment on this bill. There are many other 
Senators who have come to the committee with similar requests; that is, 
requests for provisions for their own States that much more 
appropriately lie with the Clean Water Act, not with this bill, the 
Safe Drinking Water Act.
  The Clean Water Act, the bill that will be addressing clean water 
problems including the one raised by the Senator, is a bill that was 
taken up by the committee and was reported out of the committee. In 
fact, the bill is now pending. It is on the Senate Calendar. I have 
every intention of bringing up the Clean Water Act in the next couple 
of weeks. I have spoken with the majority leader. It is also his 
intention to bring up the Clean Water Act in the next couple of weeks.
  When that bill comes before the Senate, I expect that the Senator 
from New Mexico will then urge the Senate to accept his amendment. I 
say to the Senator that we will very carefully consider the amendment 
at that time. I know how much this means to the Senator. I understand 
the merits of the program.
  I say to the Senator that we will make every effort to try to find 
accommodation. I cannot guarantee, as no Senator can guarantee, what 
the Senate will or will not do. We both have learned that over the 
years in this body. But I do say to the Senator that when the Clean 
Water Act comes up for consideration, we will very carefully consider 
the Senator's request.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the chairman very much for those words.
  I look forward to working diligently with the chairman on trying to 
legislate this amendment. If this is not the proper vehicle, I am 
willing to accept that. But I do think we need to move ahead with it. 
It is an issue that has been longstanding. Senator Domenici, who is my 
colleague, of course, has worked hard on it as well. And we have all 
tried to get some level of Federal assistance for dealing with the 
problems of the South Valley in New Mexico. I hope very much we can 
authorize the expenditure of Federal funds for this purpose as part of 
the Clean Water Act.
  I see my colleague. He may wish to make a statement related to this. 
If so, I certainly would defer to him.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, first, I thank Senator Bingaman for 
recognizing my participation in the past on this issue. Obviously, 
believe it or not, about 26 years ago, when I was essentially the mayor 
of the city of Albuquerque, this problem was already there. We spent a 
lot of money on Federal assistance around the edges, but we still have 
a very seriously heavily-populated area. There is no way to get water-
sewer type systems in. We found that this would be one of New Mexico's 
most serious environmental problems. I think the Senator would agree 
that it is growing into that. We have water pollution beginning to show 
up in very serious proportions.
  So if the country is going to be helping communities like this--and I 
understand there is an intention to do some of this on the part of the 
National Government--clearly, this urbanized part of an unincorporated 
community attendant to Albuquerque deserves every consideration. We 
will be working with the Senator, the same as he has worked with us, to 
see if we can bring this to a finalized state where, after that, we can 
look for the money from one source or another--perhaps the $500 million 
already appropriated for projects like this, which are defined but 
awaiting specificity.
  In any event, I am very grateful that Senator Baucus has given words 
of encouragement here on the floor, because that will resonate well 
with our people, who have been waiting for a long, long time.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me express appreciation to my colleague, Senator 
Domenici, for all the hard work he has done on this. I look forward to 
working with him and Chairman Baucus in trying to get this done as part 
of the Clean Water Act later this year.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry. Is an amendment 
in order now, or do we have to set something aside?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 1700 is pending. It would 
require being set aside.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent--since I believe the amendment 
which I am going to send to the desk will be accepted--that the pending 
amendment be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1702

 (Purpose: To ensure that determinations made under the Safe Drinking 
 Water Act are based on best available peer-reviewed science and that 
information is made available to the public on health effects and risk)

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

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for himself and 
     Mr. Gorton, proposes an amendment numbered 1702.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam 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:

       On page 106, line 13, strike ``and'' at the end and all 
     that follows through line 15 and insert the following:
       (B) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(3) Scientific basis for decisions.--
       ``(A) In general.--In carrying out this title, the 
     Administrator shall use the best available peer-reviewed 
     science and supporting studies conducted in accordance with 
     sound and objective scientific practices.
       ``(B) Public information.--In carrying out this title, the 
     Administrator shall ensure that the presentation of 
     information on public health effects is complete and 
     informative. The Administrator shall, in a document made 
     available to the public in support of a regulation issued 
     under this title, specify, to the extent feasible--
       ``(i) each population addressed by any estimate of public 
     health effects;
       ``(ii) the expected risk or central estimate of risk for 
     the specific population;
       ``(iii) each appropriate upper-bound or lower-bound 
     estimate of risk;
       ``(iv) each uncertainty identified in the process of the 
     assessment of public health effects and future research that 
     is necessary to address the uncertainty; and
       (v) any study known to the Administrator that supports or 
     fails to support any estimate of public health effects, 
     including the methodology used to reconcile varying 
     scientific data.''; and
       ``(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, before I speak to this amendment, let 
me take just a few moments to congratulate the chairman of the 
committee, Senator Baucus, and the ranking member, Senator Chafee of 
Rhode Island, and myriad Senators and their staffs that worked in an 
effort to put together a compromise bill, which I understand is now 
known as the managers' substitute; is that correct?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. My office participated for many weeks in that. Let me 
give a bit of history.
  While the Safe Drinking Water Act--not the modifications that the 
chairman introduced on behalf of a number of Senators, but rather the 
previous bill--was being debated in the committee, I introduced a bill 
on behalf of myself, Senator Boren, and Senator Hatfield. And I believe 
it is fair to say it was supported by a very broad coalition, made up 
of the Governors through their association; both the Conference of 
Mayors, and the National League of Cities; the counties of the United 
States; the National Rural Water Association; and the small water 
users. It was a very good, powerful, solid group, all concerned about 
safe drinking water.
  I think it is fair to say that because that bill was there, we began 
negotiating off the base bill, with it in mind and with other 
provisions that Senators had in mind. After much, much discussion and 
many, many days of hard work, the bill that is pending before the U.S. 
Senate was finally negotiated out. I thank two Senators who stepped in 
and did yeoman's work through their staffs--Senator Kerrey of Nebraska 
and Senator Hatfield of Oregon. I think their names are found alongside 
of the manager and ranking member now as part of the major bill that is 
before us.
  It is indeed a solid compromise, in my opinion. It does a lot of 
things differently than we have done them in the past, but it does one 
thing consistent with the past; that is, it assures safe drinking 
water. We are all concerned about that.
  The bill has some provisions in it that are different than we have 
done before. Obviously, in this Senator's opinion, the somewhat 
arbitrary nature of previous bills is taken out; other provisions in 
the previous law are taken out or changed. There is a lot more 
consciousness in this bill. Rural communities with small systems could 
hardly comply with the rules and regulations of the past, and many were 
going to die on the vine and there would be no water. Many were being 
put to enormous costs, and much of that cost was found--hindsight and 
otherwise--to be not needed in the interest of safe drinking water for 
the people they serve.
  Many changes have been made, such that the coalition that sought to 
make the law more responsive to costs, more responsive to risk 
assessment, at the same time we continued to make sure that we were 
providing safe drinking water and getting rid of the known 
contaminants, both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic. All of that bodes 
well.
  Nobody can stand on the floor of the Senate and say that we know 
precisely what this is going to cost every resident in our cities as we 
improve the systems to meet the requirements of this bill. But I think 
it is fair to say that this bill is now more aware of the costs to the 
citizens and residents of our cities, large and small, and, at the same 
time, it is saying we are going to have safe drinking water, from a 
health standpoint, second to none anywhere in the world. In fact, it 
will be the very best. So I am pleased with it.
  As I mentioned, because of some very serious issues raised by the 
existing law, I introduced, along with my colleagues Senators Boren and 
Hatfield, legislation that would take an alternative approach to the 
regulation of drinking water in this country. After introducing our 
legislation, we continued to work closely in negotiations conducted by 
Senators Baucus and Chafee, which included staff of many Senators 
interested in these important issues. As a result of those 
negotiations, I am pleased to note several of the major points from the 
Domenici-Boren bill that have been addressed in the legislation 
currently before the Senate, and that the Safe Drinking Water Act 
Coalition is supporting this bill.
  First, States may now develop more flexible monitoring programs that 
are based on the actual occurrence of regulated contaminants in a water 
system, and have those programs approved by EPA within 180 days. This 
will allow States to save enormous monitoring costs and was an 
important issue in the Domenici-Boren bill that we are pleased to see 
incorporated in S. 2019.
  Second, the requirement that 25 new contaminants be regulated every 
three years has been eliminated. This was a major goal of the Domenici-
Boren bill and I am pleased to see this automatic regulating removed 
from the law.
  Third, risk reduction benefits and costs are now taken into 
consideration when standards for drinking water are set, and the 
Administrator of EPA is permitted to set an alternative maximum 
contaminant level for regulated substances when public health can be 
protected at the same time that substantial cost can be avoided. Before 
now, treatment standards under this law were based only on the level of 
technology available to carry out treatment, irrespective of whether 
such stringent treatment was actually needed. This legislation would 
permit alternative treatment standards to be established for 
contaminants in drinking water when the risk of harm remains within an 
acceptable range, and substantial costs could be saved by States and 
local communities. Again, this was a major goal of our legislation, and 
it has been appropriately included in the current bill after a lot of 
hard work and productive negotiating.
  I am very hopeful that alternative standards can be achieved amicably 
between all of those who have different views, including some in the 
environmental community who do not want to move off the basic standard-
setting approach of the past.
  Finally, provisions relating to State Viability Programs have been 
modified in several helpful ways. State programs will now ensure that 
new water supply systems have the technical and financial capability to 
comply with drinking water regulations. State programs will also have 
the authority to secure voluntary restructuring of existing water 
supply systems when there is evidence of a lack of technical, 
managerial, or financial capability to comply with regulations. This 
will give States the opportunity to work cooperatively with existing 
water systems to correct compliance problems, including providing 
assistance for restructuring where appropriate. I am pleased to see all 
of these provisions included in the bill before us today.
  As to the amendment that I sent to the desk, I really do thank the 
chairman and ranking member who have indicated to me heretofore that 
they will accept this. This amendment is called the good-science 
amendment. Essentially, it establishes a requirement that the best 
available peer reviewed science and supporting studies be conducted in 
accordance with sound and objective science practices when the 
Administrator of EPA carries out the requirements of the Safe Drinking 
Water Act. It also requires the Administrator to ensure that the 
presentation of information on public health effects is complete and 
informative, and that in a document made available to the public in 
support of a regulation issued under this title, specify to the extent 
feasible information on health effects and risk.
   But, essentially it builds into the system the requirement that 
good, sound, peer-reviewed science, as defined in this amendment, will 
be used. It is a good requirement. We should use good science. We will 
use good science as the basis for determining safe drinking water 
regulations in the country in the future. I think that is pretty good.
  I think many people have been saying put more science into the 
environmental cleanup, and this amendment now will put good, sound, 
science, as defined here--worked out with scientists, with health 
people--good science as the basis for the determinations under the Safe 
Drinking Water Act.
  I believe it is a good amendment. I believe if it stays in this law 
from beginning to end and gets signed into law, we will see a very, 
very salutary effect. I think what we will see is that more and more 
good, solid science, more and more good, solid research will be done so 
that we will have within this environmental agenda a way of providing a 
bit more assurance that what we are doing is directed at making the 
water safer, and done so in an objective manner.
  This country takes great pride in having the best scientists of all 
types. It is included in everything we base our lifestyles on, and our 
growth and prosperity is more and more being built on technology and 
science and our being the front-runner in that regard.
  I think it is time to put some of that science in a mandatory manner 
in environmental laws of the land, saying let us use it so long as we 
have a system that assures that we are not going to harm anybody and we 
are going to take advantage of this great scientific potential of this 
country.
  It has been suggested that Senator Kempthorne wants to be added as a 
cosponsor, and I ask unanimous consent that he be added.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana, the manager of the 
bill.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
  Madam President, this legislation is another step in the evolution of 
safe drinking water regulation. Every bill that comes before the 
Congress is essentially another step in an evolving process one way or 
another.
  I might say that the first Drinking Water Act was enacted by the 
Congress 20 years ago. This is the 20th anniversary. It was passed 
basically because the States up to that point had authority for 
protecting their water sources and had various different approaches. 
Some States were quite protective and did a good job in assuring safe 
water for their people in their States. Others did not do a very good 
job. There are a lot of instances of illnesses, death and disease as a 
result of unsafe drinking water.
  The Congress, in 1974, passed a safe drinking water measure. It had a 
different name, but it essentially was the first Safe Drinking Water 
Act.
  Not much happened for the next 12 years, and the Environmental 
Protection Agency basically charged with developing regulations and 
standards had a halting--if that--record in attempting to deal with the 
problem.
  So in 1986, the U.S. Congress put more teeth in the Safe Drinking 
Water Act and basically said that the standards had to be written for 
86 contaminants. It said that every 3 years, EPA had to write standards 
for 25 new contaminants, regardless of whether the contaminants were 
needed. In effect, there were still 25 every 3 years, and very 
significant monitoring requirements telling water systems, big and 
large cities, to undertake these very rigorous monitoring schedules in 
order to detect whether or not contaminants were present.
  I might say, Madam President, with the benefit of hindsight, we now 
realize we went too far in 1986. That year, 1986, was the year that the 
Republican Party was the majority party in the U.S. Senate. Ronald 
Reagan was President. The 1986 amendments passed virtually unanimously 
out of committee in the full Senate. That was a time and that was an 
era when we thought we needed to dramatically improve upon the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, and we did. And with the benefit of hindsight we 
find we did it with a vengeance.
  This legislation before us is another step in the evolution of this 
Nation's effort to provide for safe drinking water. We are now, with 
the benefit of hindsight and with the benefit of new technologies and 
the benefit of greater scientific advances, making our best effort here 
to make this act more workable, make it more user friendly, make it 
more efficient, and make it more reasonable.
  In so doing, we have in the bill and in the managers' amendment 
various provisions that require the EPA and the appropriate agencies to 
use science. For example, in the contaminant selection process, we 
require peer review--scientific peer review. In the standards-setting 
process, we require consultation with the Centers for Disease Control. 
And in the radon provision of the bill we require consultation of the 
National Academy of Sciences.
  Nevertheless, everything can be improved upon, and the Senator from 
New Mexico has a further improving amendment. That is, it adds good 
science to other provisions of the act. I think the Senator should be 
commended for this improvement.
  I am about to consult with the ranking member of the committee. We 
accept it on our side.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, likewise, we think it is an excellent 
amendment.
  I know no one who has worked harder on this whole safe drinking water 
business than the senior Senator from New Mexico. Indeed it was he who 
got me interested in this subject.
  I cannot speak that he was the catalyst for everybody on the 
committee. But I do remember about 2 years ago when Senator Domenici 
brought the problems, particularly of the small water authorities, to 
our attention. So this is a continuation of his interest and able input 
into this.
  We are prepared to accept the amendment, and thank the distinguished 
Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 1702.
  The amendment (No. 1702) was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 2019, the Safe 
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994. S. 2019 reaffirms Congress' 
intent to ensure that the water people drink will be safe. I want to 
commend Senator Baucus for taking the lead role in bringing this bill 
to the Senate floor.
  Protection of public health must remain our top priority as we 
consider revisions to the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA's Science 
Advisory Board has ranked drinking water contamination as one of the 
highest risks to human health. According to the Centers for Disease 
Control, between 1986 and 1992 35 States reported 102 drinking water 
disease outbreaks linked to microscopic bacteria, viruses, and 
parasites, affecting over 34,000 people. CDC also estimates that nearly 
1 million people get sick and 900 may die each year in the United 
States from drinking contaminated water. Indeed, according to a survey 
by the National Resources Defense Council, in 1991-92, over 28 million 
Americans drank water that was more contaminated than EPA health 
protection standards allow.
  We do not often realize how much we depend on safe drinking water 
until it is not there. When the water supply was threatened last year 
in Washington, DC, people who had to bathe in and drink bottled or 
boiled water were miserable. But safe water is not just a matter of 
convenience. It is a matter of public health. Last spring, contaminated 
water in Milwaukee sickened 400,000 residents and killed 50 people.
  Americans understand the importance of safe drinking water and are 
willing to pay for it. Six percent of our citizens pay a premium and 
buy bottled water, in part because of their concern about the safety of 
drinking water. And a 1993 survey by the American Water Works 
Association Research Foundation found that 74 percent of water system 
customers were willing to pay additional costs in order to raise 
drinking water quality above Federal standards.
  At the same time, it is clear that the existing drinking water 
program is not working as well as it should because of inadequate 
funding and a lack of flexibility in the existing Safe Drinking Water 
Act.
  S. 2019 addresses these two elements.
  The first thing it takes to protect our water is money. EPA estimates 
that the needed capital expenditures to comply with existing 
regulations could exceed $8.6 billion. Unlike other infrastructure 
facilities, drinking water hasn't received the level of Federal support 
historically available for other programs through the highway trust 
fund or the Clean Water Act. Our ability to construct and renovate 
these facilities will determine the future quality of our water.
  I have been a strong advocate of providing money to States to set up 
the drinking water State revolving fund to help pay for these capital 
costs. Last year, the Senate Appropriations Committee on which I serve 
approved funding for the State drinking water revolving loan program 
subject to the program's authorization by this committee. I am pleased 
that the bill before us provides the necessary authorization. S. 2019 
also allows States to use a portion of this funding to address the 
existing shortfall States now face in implementing the Safe Drinking 
Water Act.
  But money alone is insufficient. We also need regulatory reform. We 
need to spend limited funds in the most efficient way possible to best 
protect our water supply. This is particularly true for systems serving 
few people. While cost of compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act 
for 80 percent of our households range from $3 to $13 per year, the 
cost for systems serving a few thousand people or less can be 
significantly higher. We also need States to use existing flexibility 
more efficiently. The existing act gives States flexibility to obtain 
waivers of EPA established monitoring requirements which can reduce the 
costs of monitoring by 50 percent or more.
  Two years ago, Senator Chafee and I offered a successful amendment to 
the fiscal year 1993 EPA spending bill which started the process for 
providing this necessary relief. We delayed implementation of the radon 
regulation to give more time to consider EPA's proposal and to assess 
the risk from radon in drinking water compared to the risk posed by 
radon in indoor air. We eliminated unnecessary monitoring requirements 
at small water systems serving less than 3,300 people. This resulted in 
considerable savings in monitoring costs. And we required EPA to 
provide us with a report which would give us the information necessary 
to determine how existing requirements could be made more efficient.
  Last year, the Administration proposed a number of reforms to the act 
to improve its implementation. S. 2019 contains most of these reforms.
  In addition, S. 2019 and the managers' amendment to it include an 
improvement in existing law concerning our citizens' right to know 
about the quality of the water they drink. Existing law specifies 
notice requirements. But according to a GAO report, ``Drinking Water: 
Consumers Not Well-Informed of Potentially Serious Violations,'' 
prepared for me when I chaired the subcommittee with jurisdiction over 
the Safe Drinking Water Act, there has been a high level of 
noncompliance with the public notification requirement. The GAO found 
that a major cause of noncompliance is that the notification 
requirements are difficult to implement. GAO recommended that the 
provisions be revised to focus notification more on serious violations.
  S. 2019 addresses this concern. It requires that in cases of 
violations with potential to cause serious adverse effects on human 
health, notice must be distributed within 24 hours of the violation and 
describe the adverse effects and remedial actions which are being taken 
and whether people should resort to alternative water supplies. The 
managers' amendment improves this provision by requiring that all water 
systems provide notice to its customers of any violation of a maximum 
contaminant level. Together, these provisions respond to the GAO report 
and improve the ability of citizens to know about the quality of water 
they drink.
  S. 2019 also addresses the regulation of contaminants. It eliminates 
the requirement that EPA regulate 25 new contaminants every three 
years. Instead, it requires EPA to consider regulating a specified 
number of chemicals but gives EPA the discretion to consider a number 
of factors in determining whether or not to regulate a contaminant. 
This provision makes sense. We should regulate contaminants which need 
to be regulated. We shouldn't regulate an arbitrary number of 
contaminants.
  S. 2019 and the managers' amendment also addresses the standard for 
regulating contaminants. Under current law, EPA sets the regulatory 
standard as close to the level necessary to protect public health as 
can be achieved using feasible technology taking costs into account. 
Mr. President, it seems to me that the existing standard already 
considers the factors it should: public health, feasible technology and 
costs. The only concern with this standard is that it doesn't consider 
the costs of compliance by small water systems. S. 2019 addresses this 
problem by requiring EPA to establish a small system technology and 
allowing small systems to obtain variances to install this less costly 
technology under specified circumstances. So my preference would be to 
see no change in the existing standard except to allow small systems to 
use the small system technology standard in certain circumstances.
  The Managers' amendment to S. 2019 would allow the Administrator to 
choose a different standard than the one which would result from 
existing law only if the Administrator can make two determinations. 
First, the Administrator must determine that the new standard will 
achieve a substantial cost reduction when compared to the feasible 
level. Second, the Administrator must make a determination regarding 
the health effects of the alternative standard. For a carcinogen, the 
alternative standard must not result in a significant increase in 
individual lifetime cancer risks from concentrations of the contaminant 
in drinking water relative to the feasible level. For noncarcinogens, 
the Administrator must ensure a reasonable certainty of no harm. So the 
Administrator cannot choose an alternative standard unless the 
Administrator can ensure that the public health will continue to be 
protected. While my preference would be to see no change in the 
standard, I understand that this provision continues to require the 
Administrator to protect public health from contaminants in drinking 
water.
  I do strongly oppose the proposed regulatory standard in S. 2019 
which would relax existing health standards with a vague, politically 
manipulable standard driven by less effective technology available to 
small communities. It would weaken health protection in big cities like 
those found in my state and replace it with a less protective standard 
based on what very small water systems and trailer parks could afford. 
This is not the standard which our people want or which will protect 
their health.
  Mr. President, the Safe Drinking Water Act needs to be amended this 
year. I fear that any effort to weaken S. 2019 will doom the bill this 
year. I urge my colleagues to avoid the prospect and support S. 2019 as 
the best bill available to protect our drinking water while 
significantly reducing regulatory burdens.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                           amendment no. 1700

  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise to support an amendment to 
section 9, the Source Water Quality Protection Program. I am pleased to 
cosponsor this amendment with Senator Warner, of Virginia. We have 
worked closely together to develop a program that will help communities 
and water systems protect their drinking water sources from harmful 
pollutants. Moreover, we have tried to take a cooperative and voluntary 
approach to sourcewater protection by offering incentives to States and 
communities that want to pursue a sourcewater protection program.
  What we are trying to accomplish by reauthorizing the Safe Drinking 
Water Act is a more rational approach to ensuring clean, safe drinking 
water for the country. We need to make sure that the scarce resources 
that we direct toward this goal are expended in the most effective 
manner possible. I believe the bill before the Senate does this. It 
makes the law more workable and more rational. It provides financial 
assistance and greater flexibility to meet the requirements of the act. 
And, it provides additional consideration of risk in the regulation of 
contaminants.
  We should also work to provide positive incentives, rather than 
prescriptive mandates, to achieve our goals. That is what the Warner-
Conrad amendment is designed to do with respect to sourcewater 
protection.
  Our amendment encourages States to assist communities that are 
seeking to reduce contaminants in their drinking water sources. The 
States would work together with local governments, water systems, and 
others in a cooperative effort to prevent pollution. Communities would 
initiate the process by submitting a petition for assistance to the 
State. The petition would identify specific contaminants that threaten 
the water supply and the kind of actions that could be taken to reduce 
those contaminants. After reviewing the merits of the petition, the 
State may provide such assistance as is needed and available.
  Resources available to the State would include section 319 nonpoint 
source pollution grants and access to the State revolving loan fund 
under the Clean Water Act, as well as technical assistance from a 
variety of programs.
  This amendment gives communities an alternative to costly treatment 
requirements. However, it requires communities to work together with 
the State and parties in the sourcewater area in order to achieve their 
goal.
  I emphasize this point because I was concerned that the language 
originally included in S. 2019 would give communities the authority to 
unilaterally impose land-use restrictions, costly management measures, 
and other regulatory requirements on the area around their sourcewater. 
This could lead to hundreds of new separate and unnecessary regulatory 
bureaucracies, because each community would develop its own plan. More 
important, giving communities such broad regulatory authority would 
impose unfair costs and burdens on area farmers, ranchers, and other 
land-users, who would have to foot the bill for the communities' 
expensive management plans. In fact, as written now, S. 2019 does not 
even require communities to consider cost, feasibility, or 
effectiveness in developing their sourcewater protection plans. They 
could simply pass on massive costs to others in the area, even if the 
benefit is negligible.
  Madam President, that is not the way to effectively prevent 
pollution. Our amendment says that if pollution prevention or reduction 
is cost effective, then it should be a joint effort--not a unilateral 
one. We want to provide the incentives, and let the communities and 
others can provide the cooperation and initiative to make pollution 
prevention work.
  Finally, our amendment does not impose a new requirement on the 
States. As my colleagues know, S. 2019 currently requires States to set 
up a sourcewater protection program. We would make this program 
voluntary, and we authorize EPA grant money as an incentive to help 
States establish a program. States are hard-pressed to meet the current 
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, and we must do all we can 
to provide positive incentives, instead of direct mandates, to 
encourage further action.
  Madam President, pollution prevention can be an effective and prudent 
way to protect drinking water quality. I believe our amendment will 
take advantage of this and give communities a valuable new tool to use 
in the fight to ensure a safe drinking water supply.
  We have worked closely with Chairman Baucus and Senator Chafee, as 
well as water groups and the regulated community, to develop this 
amendment. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for their 
hard work and willingness to address our concerns. I am especially 
pleased to have their support.
  I should also note that this amendment has been endorsed by a broad 
range of agricultural, industrial, and water groups. I hope my 
colleagues will also support it and urge its approval.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, we spoke on this amendment earlier; 
particularly Senator Warner spoke on it. The managers accept the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 1700) was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.


                           Amendment No. 1703

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Madam 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 Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1703.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Madam 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:

       On page 68, after line 18, insert the following:
       (d) Section 1412(b)(6) (42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(6)) is amended 
     by adding at the end thereof the following: ``The 
     Administrator shall include in the list any technology, 
     treatment technique or other means that is feasible for small 
     public water systems and that achieves compliance with the 
     maximum contaminant level, including (A) packaged or modular 
     systems; and (B) point of entry treatment units that are 
     controlled by the public water system to ensure proper 
     operation and maintenance and compliance with the maximum 
     contaminant level and equipped with mechanical warnings to 
     ensure that customers are automatically notified of 
     operational problems.''.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Madam President, one of the most difficult issues 
that we have grappled with in the Environment and Public Works 
Committee during reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act has 
been how to best help small systems. My amendment would build on the 
other provisions of this bill by providing an additional option to help 
small systems.
  When EPA develops its primary drinking water regulations, it chooses 
a standard that is both protective of public health and is 
technologically feasible, taking the cost of achieving the standard 
into consideration. The baseline system size for EPA's selection of a 
drinking water standard is, more often than not, a public water system 
that serves 100,000 or more customers. Thus, most Americans who receive 
their drinking water from large systems get the maximum protection 
affordable.
  Unfortunately, most of the public water systems in the United States 
are small. They serve a population of under 3,300 and, in fact, a good 
many serve populations of less than 400. Needless to say, the expensive 
treatment systems required by most EPA standards are out of reach for 
most small public water systems.
  We grappled with this problem in committee, providing State revolving 
fund funding, extending loan forgiveness to disadvantaged communities, 
and providing a streamlined method for States to give variances to 
small systems. We also required the EPA Administrator to identify 
alternative technologies that are appropriate for small systems when 
she publishes a maximum contaminant level.
  My amendment fills in another piece of the framework for helping 
small systems. Technological advances over the past several years has 
led to the development of nontraditional, cost-effective treatment 
solutions. Some of these are pre-engineered, skid-mounted treatment 
plants, sometimes referred to as packaged plants, or point-of-entry and 
point-of-use water treatment units. Their virtue is that for some 
contaminants, these nontraditional treatment systems can achieve the 
treatment standard set by EPA and a much lower cost to small systems.
  For example, in Cayuga, NY, a package filtration system is serving 
750 people. It has continuously met Federal drinking water standards 
since 1982, and produced a 60-percent cost savings for the community 
over the usual custom-designed slow sand filter.
  In Freestone, CA, the 40 residents used a package filtration system 
to meet the requirements under the Surface Water Treatment Rule. The 
community estimated a $100,000 savings in equipment and related costs.
  Anothr virtue is that these nontraditional treatment systems are 
compatible with other treatment technologies, particularly central 
treatment. They are also not limited by local topography, climate, or 
soil conditions.
  My amendment requires the EPA Administrator to include on the list of 
alternative technologies for small systems, those nontraditional 
treatment systems that meet the specified maximum contaminant level. 
The amendment also includes appropriate language to ensure that, when 
these treatment systems are used, procedures are in place to allow for 
proper operation, maintenance, and compliance with the maximum 
contaminant level.
  Madam President, because the problems experienced by small systems 
depend on their unique circumstances, including their water source, the 
mixture of contaminants present, and their size and economic status, 
there is no single answer we can design in law to address their 
problems. I believe that the availability of these nontraditional 
treatment systems may make the difference for some small communities. I 
hope my colleagues will support my amendment.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I commend the Senator from Idaho for the 
amendment he has presented. He is truly representing the folks of his 
State where they do have many, many small water systems. Let me just 
give you a statistic, if I might.
  There are 36,000 community water systems in the United States serving 
populations of less than 500 people. It seems impossible, but that is 
the point that the Senator from Idaho was making. In his State--and in 
mine, too, but to a lesser degree, but certainly in his State--he has, 
I can only believe, a whole series of these very small systems that, if 
we require the traditional type of preventive--well, I guess the word 
is ``preventive''--or curative solutions be adopted, the costs would 
just be out of sight.
  So the point the Senator from Idaho has made in his amendment is an 
excellent one. There are innovative techniques that can be developed. 
The only way we will do them is if we try them. So I commend the 
Senator from Idaho for his amendment and, certainly on this side, we 
accept it enthusiastically.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). Is there further debate on the 
amendment? The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from Idaho has a very 
important amendment to the bill. It is a very important addition. 
Essentially it asks EPA to identify the technologies that allow 
communities to meet the normal standard-setting process. I think it is 
a very good amendment.
  Currently in the bill we ask EPA to identify small system 
technologies, particularly for those communities that are unable to 
meet normal standard-setting requirements. This adds a new requirement 
to list those technologies where communities would be able to meet the 
normal standard-setting requirements. There are some other provisions 
of the amendment, too, which are very good. I thank the Senator for 
offering the amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? The Senator from 
Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking 
member for their comments and the support on this amendment.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1703) was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

                          ____________________