[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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment on behalf of
Senator Lautenberg.
Amendment No. 1704
(Purpose: To modify the bottled water drinking water
provisions under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Mr. BAUCUS. 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 Montana [Mr. BAUCUS], for Mr. Lautenberg
proposes an amendment numbered 1704.
Mr. BAUCUS. 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:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following
new section:
SEC. . BOTTLED DRINKING WATER STANDARDS.
Section 410 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 349) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Whenever'' and inserting ``(a) Except as
provided in subsection (b), whenever''; and
(2) by adding at the end following new subsection:
``(b)(1) After the Administrator of the Enviromental
Protection Agency publishes a proposed maximum contaminant
level, but not later than 180 days after the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency publishes a final maximum
contaminant level, for a contaminant under section 1412 of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300g-1), the
Secretary, after public notice and comment, shall issue a
regulation that establishes a quality level for the
contaminant in bottled water or make a finding that
regulation is not necessary to protect the public health
because the contaminant is contained in water in the public
water systems (as defined under section 1401(4) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 300f(4)) and not in water used for bottled
drinking water.
``(2) The regulation shall include any monitoring
requirements that the Secretary determines appropriate for
bottled water.
``(3) The regulation--
``(A) shall require that the quality level for the
contaminant in bottled water be as stringent as the maximum
contaminant level for the contaminant published by the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and
``(B) may require that the quality level be more stringent
than the maximum contaminant level if necessary to provide
ample public health protection under this Act.
(4)(A) If the Secretary fails to establish a regulation
within the 180-day period described in paragraph (1), the
regulation with respect to the final maximum contaminant
level published by the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (as described in such paragraph) shall be
considered, as of the date on which the Secretary is required
to establish a regulation under paragraph (1), as the final
regulation for the establishment of the quality level for a
contaminant required under paragraph (1) for the purpose of
establishing or amending a bottled water quality level
standard with respect to the contaminant.
``(B) Not later than 30 days after the end of the 180-day
period described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall, with
respect to a maximum contaminant level that is considered as
a quality level under subparagraph (A), publish a notice in
the Federal Register that sets forth the quality level and
apropriate monitoring requirements required under paragraphs
(1) and (2) and that provides that the quality level standard
and requirements shall take effect on the date on which the
final regulation of the maximum contaminant level takes
effect.''.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment regulates bottled water.
Basically it provides that if the Food and Drug Administration fails to
regulate the contaminant in bottled water within 6 months after EPA
regulates a contaminant found in municipal water systems, then the EPA
standard will apply to bottled water. The FDA standards under the
amendment must be at least as stringent as EPA's and may be more
stringent if the FDA determines that a standard for bottled water needs
to be more stringent in order to protect public health.
This amendment, as I said, is offered--I am offering it on behalf of
Senator Lautenberg. It is an amendment that Senator Lautenberg from New
Jersey would offer if he were here at this moment. I reviewed it and I
urge the Senate to agree to it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. BAUCUS. I understand this amendment has been cleared.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the amendment?
The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, that is correct. We also agree with it on
this side.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment which will
strengthen the Federal Government's authority to ensure that the
bottled water Americans drink is healthy and safe.
My amendment provides that if the Food and Drug Administration fails
to regulate a contaminant in bottled water in a timely manner after EPA
regulates a contaminant found in municipal water systems, the EPA
standard will apply to bottled water. My amendment also provides that
FDA quality standards for bottled water must be at least as stringent
as EPA drinking water standards. And in those cases where the FDA
believes it is appropriate for public health protection, bottled water
quality standards can be even tougher than EPA standards.
Mr. President, bottled water is becoming more popular every year.
Currently, 44 percent of the public consumes bottled water, and 6
percent use only bottled water for their drinking water. On average, we
consumed 9.5 gallons of bottled water last year, 64 ounces more than
each individual consumed in 1992. It is a product which is used by
millions of Americans. And 35 percent of those that consume it say that
they do so out of a concern for health and safety. More than anything
else, Americans want water that is of good quality.
While the FDA has had authority for many years to set standards for
the quality of bottled water, it has been slow to do so. Until very
recently, the FDS had almost no quality standards for bottled water and
the industry was largely self-regulated or subject to various state
regulations. This year, the FDA proposed quality standards for 38
contaminants in bottled water that had been established by EPA for tap
water. While this is good news, this action happened only after much
congressional and public concern. We need to ensure that future
standards for bottled water are established in a more timely manner and
consistent with public health protection.
Mr. President, let me summarize briefly the main provisions of my
amendment. First, it requires that FDA, no later than 180 days after
EPA promulgates a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for municipal water
systems, establish a standard for that contaminant for bottled water.
The standard must be at least as stringent as the MCL for municipal
water and may be stricter if necessary to provide ample health
protection. The FDA may make a finding that a standard for that
contaminant is not needed for bottled water because it is unique to
public drinking water supplies.
Second, my amendment establishes that the standard for bottled water
will be the EPA MCL standard if the FDA fails to take action within 180
days after EPA establishes a standard. If this occurs, the FDA must
publish, within 30 days, appropriate monitoring requirements that will
apply to bottled water for the contaminant.
My amendment will foster cooperation between the EPA and FDA and
eliminate unnecessary duplication of efforts.
Mr. President, let me make clear that this amendment in no way
changes the current authority the FDA has over regulation of bottled
water. All enforcement authorities under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act will continue to apply to the regulation of bottled water by the
FDA. It does, however, provide for a more timely process for the
protection of the public.
Mr. President, I have worked closely with the International Bottled
Water Association (IBWA) and the Natural Resources Defense Council to
craft language which will protect the public from harmful contaminants
in their bottled water. The IBWA represents about 85 percent of the
Nation's bottled water industry, and their product generated sales last
year of $3 billion--an all time high. The bottled water producers
deserve credit for their willingness to work with us to establish a
more aggressive national program to protect public health. I want to
thank both the IBWA and the NRDC for their efforts. I also want to
thank Senator Kennedy and the staff of the Senate Labor Committee for
their efforts to work out an acceptable provision. Finally, I
appreciate the willingness of Senators Baucus and Chafee for accepting
this amendment.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the bottled water
amendment. I ask unanimous consent that a letter in support of the
amendment from the International Bottled Water Association be included
in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
International Bottled
Water Association,
Alexandria, VA, May 9, 1994.
Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lautenberg: The International Bottled Water
Association, which represents over 85 percent of all bottled
water produced in the United States, is pleased to support
your amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act regarding
bottled water. Requiring the Food and Drug Administration to
adopt a quality standard no later than when the Environmental
Protection Agency finalizes a standard for the public water
systems, is a position the industry has supported for quite
some time.
One in six households relies on bottled water as their
source of drinking water. In 1993, bottled water sales
reached an all-time high of nearly $3 billion, making bottled
water one of the fastest growing segments of the beverage
industry. Bottled water is regulated by FDA, the states and
through IBWA's own model code. Your provision will ensure
that quality standards will be set in a timely manner at the
federal level.
IBWA believes this proposal is reasonable for the industry
and in the best interest of the ever-growing numbers of
bottled water consumers. IBWA applauds this common-sense
proposal, and on behalf of the industry, I would like to
thank you for your efforts in moving it forward.
Sincerely,
Sylvia E. Swanson,
Executive Vice President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1704) 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.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I see no Senators who wish to offer
amendments. I, therefore, suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I will make some brief remarks about the
safe drinking water legislation while we await the majority leader's
entrance. When that takes place, I will conclude my remarks and place
the remainder of my remarks in the Record.
I want to commend the chairman of the Environment and Public Works
Committee, Senator Baucus. He has listened carefully to our complaints
and suggestions and ideas, and he and Senator Chafee work closely
together and do splendid cooperative work.
Now we are going to proceed with this legislation. It is important to
every community in this country, large or small, rich or poor. The
public health statute ensures that our citizens have clean water to
drink when they turn on the tap. But this law is important for another
reason, too, because this can be very costly business for small rural
communities that just do not have the financial resources necessary to
comply with very stringent and previously very inflexible standards and
monitoring requirements. All of us, I think, in this Congress have been
sensitized--would be the word--to the issue of unfunded Federal
mandates--that is coming from both sides of the aisle, a completely
bipartisan approach--as to the horror of the unfunded Federal mandate.
Regulatory excesses, brought about by the last reauthorization of the
Safe Drinking Water Act, have helped to bring that about.
The environmental groups may think that unfunded mandates are part of
what they call an unholy trinity, but I can tell you that to a Member
of Congress this issue is a very real concern.
When we travel around our States, and my State, a small State, a land
of high altitude and low multitude, 460,000 people in 98,000 square
miles--and I stop in small towns--I always hear complaints about the
Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act and unfunded mandates.
I am sure my colleagues hear the same laments as well.
The last time we reauthorized the Safe Drinking Water Act, we nearly
caused a crisis in small town America. Thousands of small towns are
financially unable to meet Federal drinking water requirements, and
they need help finding less expensive ways to ensure that the water
they provide to the public--their public--is safe to drink.
A recent GAO report stated that meeting Federal drinking water
standards is an acute problem for around 50,000 small communities. They
account for 90 percent of the drinking water violations. We need to
force EPA to develop new cost-effective standards based on sound
scientific evidence so that small communities can provide safe drinking
water without suffering economic hardship or we are going to be
discredited in the eyes of the American public. The bill we are
considering today will help us do that.
The EPA estimates it will cost small communities $3 billion to comply
with current Federal drinking water regulations and another $20 billion
to repair and replace and expand their current drinking water
infrastructure and to meet future needs.
It has been estimated that 70 percent of the costs will be incurred
by small communities that account for 10 percent of the population.
These communities cannot afford this kind of expense, and I do not
think a simple revolving loan program is the only answer. Regulatory
reform is just as important as providing funding.
In the past, neither the Federal Government nor the States have
developed policies that reduce compliance costs through the development
of more effective, cost-effective technology or the development of
better financing and funding mechanisms. We are now allowing the States
to make direct grants to disadvantaged small communities in conjunction
with a revolving loan fund program and, more important, we revise
monitoring requirements and change the way standards are being set in
order to reduce compliance costs.
The bill we are considering is a great improvement in this regard,
but I do not think it goes far enough. Environmental groups have taken
a paternalistic approach to this issue, and they just do not believe
the poor, dull-witted boobs in the States should be given flexibility
in carrying out the act.
This is not the classic case where it is industry versus the
greenies. This is Governors and mayors and State legislators and water
administrators saying, ``Congress must do something radical to fix this
problem or we are going to go broke.''
They have endorsed the Slattery bill on the House side and the Boren-
Domenici bill in the Senate. The bill the committee has reported has
taken some of the concepts of the Slattery bill, and I think this is
constructive. I appreciate the willingness of our chairman, Max Baucus,
and Senator John Chafee to consider changes in the original
legislation. I think this bill has been improved significantly.
There have been negotiations between members of the committee and
other Senators, since the bill was reported, in an effort to resolve
the standard-setting issue to ensure that the monitoring requirements
truly do grant relief to small rural communities. The committee
amendment reflects the outcome of these negotiations. I do not think
the committee amendment goes as far as I would have liked in directing
EPA to consider cost-benefit ratios and good science, but I think the
final version represents a genuine effort to improve current law, and
it will cause EPA to take a more realistic approach to standard setting
in the future.
I want to commend Senator Domenici for his efforts in bringing common
sense to the process. He has always been a leader in getting Safe
Drinking Water Act reform.
Senator Baucus and Senator Chafee have also listened patiently to the
concerns expressed by those of us on the committee who supported the
Domenici-Boren bill, and they have incorporated many of our concerns
into the committee amendment.
I am concerned about how future action may affect the legislation. We
may still have conference committee consideration with the House this
year, and I want to say now that if this bill is changed to the point
where it reduces flexibility, to the point where it does that for the
States and the local communities, and if it does not require EPA to use
sound science and risk assessment and to take into account costs in
setting standards, then after we conclude conference consideration, I
will have a very difficult time supporting it.
We have made all the compromises here. There is little or no room for
further compromise. It has been a good-faith effort, and I trust my
Senate colleagues will recognize this; and if we do go to conference
with the House, that we will resist the temptation to give up some of
the very meaningful changes in law that this Senate bill now embodies.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the bill before the Senate, S. 2019, the
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994, provides for the
establishment of a grant program, to be administered by the
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], that would fund not fewer than
five Small Public Water Systems Technology Assistance Centers across
the United States. I commend the Committee on Environmental and Public
Works for the action it has taken in this regard. I would, however, ask
the senior Senator from Montana, the Chairman of the Committee, for
some clarification of the criteria listed in the new subsection (h).
The criteria listed in the bill reference technical assistance support
activities that would be provided by regional centers. My question to
the manager of the bill is:
Would a national center engaged in the following activities meet the
criteria listed for the proposed Small Public Water Systems Technology
Centers?
A clearinghouse service engaged in the both collection and
distribution, at no or low cost, of technical literature and other
educational resource materials, including government documents,
research papers, video tapes, brochures, and diagrams;
A toll-free telephone assistance and referral service providing
access to engineers and other specialists;
A quarterly newsletter service, published at no cost of subscribers,
that addresses such topics as the health effects of contaminated
waters, small community assistance providers, small water system
regulatory issues, and water system operation and maintenance; and
A toll-free electronic bulletin board service that enables users to
post questions and have those questions answered, as well as to read
and comment on water-related topics.
In reading the bill and the committee's report, I would presume that
a national center that provides such services would be eligible to
receive funding under the grant program established in the bill. I
would simply ask the manager of the bill if this is correct.
Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator is correct. Let me add that the concept of
providing grants to regional centers that the Senator refers to is
primarily intended to ensure that such centers are distributed
throughout our Nation. It is not intended to limit the scope of
assistance these centers can provide.
The regional technology assistance centers are intended to be sited
in areas that are representative of their region in regards to the
water supply needs of small rural communities. In this respect, these
centers are supposed to have expertise in the particular water supply
problems associated with that region.
The Senator is correct, however, in pointing out that the information
these centers provide can also be national in scope. The access to this
information, therefore, should not be limited to any particular State
or region. In providing assistance on a national basis, these centers
should coordinate their activities to minimize any duplication of
effort and to maximize the utility of the information provided.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. PELL addressed the chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island
Mr. PELL. I ask that I may be recognized as if in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________