[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.

                          ____________________