[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 59 (Friday, May 13, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1994

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 2019, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2019) to reauthorize and amend title XIV of the 
     Public Health Service Act (commonly known as the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act), and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, we are now on the Safe Drinking Water 
Act. I urge Senators who have amendments to come to the floor to offer 
them.
  Under the agreement reached last night, there is a certain list of 
amendments. They must be brought up by the close of business, I guess a 
time certain, on Wednesday, which means, obviously, that those Senators 
who want to have full time for the Senate to consider their amendments 
should bring them up earlier rather than later. Otherwise, we will be 
facing a time crunch come Tuesday or Wednesday.
  I would also note that sometimes other matters come before the Senate 
which are unanticipated which also take time, therefore taking time 
away from the Safe Drinking Water Act on Monday or Tuesday or 
Wednesday.
  So I strongly urge Senators who have amendments to come over to the 
floor now so we can dispose of those amendments. Senators will have 
time today to deal with them. There may be less time to deal with them 
at a later date.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, if I could inquire, are we under an 
order, or is it just open on the bill?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Pursuant to the order agreed upon 
last evening, there are a limited number of amendments which may be 
considered.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, it is not my intention to offer an 
amendment at this time, but I would like to speak. I just had a 
conversation with the distinguished Senator from Montana. I would like 
to say a few words about an amendment that passed last night by voice 
vote at a time when I was unable to come to the floor to express my 
opposition to it. And now, given the state of play, I think I do have 
fully reserved a place among the amendments, but I am not convinced yet 
whether or not I am going to bring an amendment to the floor to counter 
the impact of what happened last night.
  Last night, Senators Warner and Conrad offered an amendment that was 
approved by voice vote. I believe, regrettably, that amendment is going 
to weaken the fairly modest source water protection provisions that are 
in the unanimously passed Environment Committee safe drinking water 
reauthorization.
  I know the distinguished chairman and manager cares about this. I 
know that he is laboring under great difficulties in the U.S. Senate in 
getting a consensus on this legislation, and the interests that are 
brought to bear on these issues are not small.
  But I want to talk now about source water protection because people 
ought to have an understanding of what we have lost in the effort to 
get a consensus to pass this bill. We always lose something in these 
efforts and I am not suggesting that it is not difficult. But I do 
think the issue ought to be talked about because it is an important 
component of legitimate efforts to have an environmental policy that is 
truly meaningful.
  Source water protection, also called pollution prevention, and is the 
smartest way to address environmental problems. We are now struggling 
over the spending of billions of dollars--literally billions of 
dollars--to clean up the contaminated waste sites that we made.
  For the better part of the industrial revolution in this country, 
from the development of this Nation in the late 1800's to its largest 
industrial sense through the 1900's, we did not know better at certain 
times, or if we knew better, it was at the very incipient stages of 
awareness--recognizing that Rachel Carson wrote ``Silent Spring'' only 
in the last half of this century and the environmental movement really 
only grew at that time.
  But now we have learned. Now we know. We know that we have American 
citizens who die as a consequence of our carelessness. Whether it is 
Love Canal or whether it is Woburn, MA, or the recent case in 
Milwaukee, there are people who are exposed to carcinogens, to toxics, 
to chemicals, to wastes--many cases of waste we do not know or 
understand the implication of, but it seeps down into the water 
systems, it seeps into our estuaries and our bays.
  You can travel to nearby Chesapeake Bay, where they are suffering 
from nitrate overloading, or you can come to our bays in Massachusetts 
and see what happens when we had to close some 66,000 acres of clambeds 
to the loss of millions of dollars of income to fishermen, not to 
mention what it does to your tourist industry because of spillage.
  Is it spillage from boats? No. Often it is spillage that comes from 
the careless use of oil and gasoline and dumping and pesticides and 
agricultural runoff in the uplands and it just flows down to settle 
somewhere.
  Well, it is the same problem in our aquifers and in our watersheds of 
this country. You know, when we dump stuff on the ground, it does not 
just stay there. It goes somewhere. It seeps down, flows elsewhere, and 
it collects and we spoil whole aquifers and we destroy water resources 
and wildlife. And then we turn around and we have a big debate on the 
floor of the U.S. Senate and the House, ``Oh, my God, look what we have 
done. How are we doing to pay for it? How are we going to clean this 
up?''
  We have thousands of Superfund sites or potential Superfund sites 
across this country. I think the number is now close to 4,000 or 
so. There are 1,200 designated Superfund sites alone and thousands of 
other hazardous waste sites that we have not yet in America fully 
cleaned up. That is incredible.

  So, here we are in this bill, trying to put in place the notion that 
the smartest way to avoid asking taxpayers to spend billions of dollars 
to clean up our mess is obviously not to make the mess in the first 
place. In Boston, now, we have the Boston Harbor cleanup effort, one of 
the most expensive cleanups in the country because of the mess that 
people have made in prior years. We try to teach our children the 
basics of conservation and recycling, the basics of cleanliness and the 
standards of maintenance of the communities in order to avoid these 
messes.
  This bill, by unanimous consent, by unanimous agreement within the 
committee, came to the floor with a modest source water protection 
effort, understanding that people are disturbed about unfunded national 
mandates. So we somehow have to find the most cost-effective solutions 
to problem solving and to seek out approaches that solve problems with 
the least bureaucracy and the least possible waste.
  In his highly acclaimed book ``Reinventing Government,'' David 
Osborne stressed the value of what he called anticipatory Government, a 
Government that is focused on preventing problems before they are 
created and before they become crises. The advantage of preventive 
Government over reactive Government ought to be obvious. It heads off 
crises and it saves money. Osborne demonstrates that prevention has 
made the greatest strides in the environmental arena through its focus 
on pollution prevention. This is one arena where we have proven our 
capacity to implement the concept of preventive governmental action.
  While Congress and the executive branch are often in conflict, they 
share one thing. Both tend to react to crises rather than anticipate 
and manage for the future. We are, obviously, never going to be able to 
avoid all crises. I do not pretend that. But we ought to take every 
opportunity we can to promote preventive measures to limit the 
necessity of reactive response later on. So I think it would be wise to 
review every environmental statute and make a judgment as to what 
opportunities does this statute provide us for pollution prevention 
provisions.
  A recent example is what we have undertaken in the Federal 
Government, finally, at the directives of the President of the United 
States, to prevent pollution and promote recycling. Look at all the 
paper. Every single day we throw away inordinate amounts of paper that 
we print up, far too often not always used. We have an incredible lack 
of recycling in our own efforts, even though we mandate it for other 
people.
  There are all kinds of wastes of energy, raw materials, natural 
resources, steam release and so forth that are opportunities for 
conservation. Now the President has undertaken a major overhaul of 
Federal Government pollution prevention policies.
  This bill, wisely, came out of committee with that kind of prevention 
effort: A source water protection effort. That is one form of pollution 
prevention that has proven over and over to be cost effective. As the 
costs escalate for treatment, for remediation, for replacing 
contaminated drinking water supplies, local governments and taxpayers 
are overwhelmed.
  We ought to happily grab at a program that creates an incentive for 
local communities and States to think about source water pollution 
prevention efforts. They turn to the Federal Government for assistance 
when they do not think about it. And we turn around and wrestle here 
with whether or not we are going to cut education, whether we are going 
to cut child immunization programs, whether we are going to cut a whole 
host of programs, which suffer because we are looking for money and we 
do not have the money to do the things we need to do. But we continue 
to create the crises that we know are going to feed this frenzy.
  Here in this bill we had an opportunity to have that kind of effort 
to give an incentive to communities. We were trying to come up with the 
best, most economical and feasible way to assist communities in 
protecting local drinking water supplies before they could become 
contaminated, rather than paying to clean up afterwards.
  The Safe Drinking Water Act has included programs to protect the 
quality of sole source aquifers and wellhead areas. These programs have 
proven to be effective. Section 9 of S. 2019, the source water 
protection provisions, as reported by the committee, provides a new 
initiative to encourage States and the water systems to implement 
programs voluntarily to protect the quality of existing sources of 
drinking water and to prevent contamination before it occurs.
  The bill, as it came out of committee, would have required the 
States--and I emphasize this--it would have required the States to have 
a process, just a process, to review and to approve any source water 
protection plan by a local entity. It prescribed that the EPA should 
support those efforts with technical and financial assistance and by 
issuing guidance for the preparation of plans for those communities 
that chose to participate.
  I want to emphasize, the bill that came out of the committee 
unanimously offered an incentive to local communities, requiring the 
States to set up a plan, but it did not require the communities to 
participate. It simply said we are going to have a plan and we want to 
have a review. They would provide technical assistance for those who 
chose to participate.
  The source water protection provision that came out of the committee 
was voluntary and it would have allowed all local communities to 
participate if they chose. Let me quote directly from the Environment 
Committee report:

       Water systems are not required to develop source water 
     protection plans, but incentives are provided to encourage 
     development of plans. If a source water protection plan is 
     approved, a community is eligible for grant and loan funds 
     under the Clean Water Act to implement the plan. The 
     community may also propose reduced monitoring requirements 
     based on elements of the approved plan. In addition, Federal 
     agency actions are required to be consistent with the plan to 
     the maximum extent practical.

  Regrettably, Senator Warner and Senator Conrad offered an amendment 
that will almost certainly preclude some local communities that want to 
participate, from participating. So this whole effort to try to create 
an incentive has now been watered down, diminished, and even blocked in 
some cases. This is a classic example of the great tug of war between 
interests, special interests--in this case mostly agriculture interests 
that are just petrified that they may be held accountable, or required 
to start to think about the impact of some of the things that they put 
on the Earth and allow to run off into people's drinking water that we 
then have to pay for, and generally, to clean up.
  We adopted long ago the concept of polluter pays. That has been at 
the heart of environmental policy in this country for some time. What 
we have seen happen in the last hours is one of those rather 
interesting things, where we come in here and diminish the capacity of 
people to be held accountable, and we cave in to the interests that do 
not want to be held accountable.
  Under this amendment, States would have no responsibility for 
promoting source water protection. Under this amendment, States are not 
required to set up procedures for reviewing and approving source water 
protection plans. Under this amendment, we are obviating preventive 
Government. We are obviating--turning away from responsibility in favor 
of ducking the hard choices and suggesting that we can go on asking 
citizens from all over the country to belly up and pay their tax money 
for known bad health and environmental and economic policies.
  If a State chooses, under this amendment, not to set up a source 
water protection program, then the local community in that State cannot 
participate--out, finished, gone--rather than what the committee 
originally, by unanimous decision, felt was important, which was to 
have the States required to come up with a review policy. Rather than 
providing incentives to promote preventive measures, the amendment, in 
effect, becomes an impediment to local communities trying to take 
innovative, proactive environmental measures; important efforts to try 
to stem the crisis before it is, in fact, a crisis.
  Source water protection gains support from many Government entities, 
as well as from environmental and public health groups because of the 
enormous benefits to all. It is far more evident than all the reasons 
for having moved away from this. I have heard from all levels of 
Government, Madam President. The EPA wants this--Carol Browner has 
written us a letter stating it is important. And many State governments 
as well. But because some now have opted to pull out the rug from under 
them, there is no mandate. And many local communities were supporting 
the committee-passed source water protection provision.
  Carol Browner just sent a letter, and I ask unanimous consent to 
print this letter in the Record at the end of my comments.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I have letters of support from numerous 
organizations: the National Roundtable of State Pollution Prevention 
Programs; the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection; the 
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority; the National Water Funding 
Council; the Physicians for Social Responsibility; the Natural 
Resources Defense Council; Friends of the Earth; the American Oceans 
Campaign, and many others.
  I ask unanimous consent that several of those letters be printed in 
the Record at the end of my comments.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See Exhibit 2.)
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, S. 2019, as originally reported by the 
Environment Committee, was a reasonable, nonregulatory approach that 
provided an incentive; it did not mandate a community to participate. 
It did require a State to have a review process. And in 1994, given all 
the money we are spending and all that we have learned about source 
point pollution control and nonpoint source pollution, we ought to know 
better, and we ought to be able to do better.
  I think that we should not want to take away intelligent prevention 
measures from local communities, and we ought to require the States to 
have some kind of plan to do that.
  I had originally intended to come to the floor to offer my praise to 
the committee for moving in this direction and to compliment them for 
doing so. I regret that I find myself now having to come to the floor 
to express my disappointment that the committee was not able to 
continue in that direction. And I understand the pressures the chair 
faces. It is not the chair's fault. It is just the way the Senate 
sometimes works and it is the way we get sidetracked around here.
  But I want to say that I think the Warner-Conrad amendment undermines 
environmental protection. I think it undermines the effort to be 
preventive rather than reactive. I am very hopeful that this action can 
be reversed in conference, if not conceivably in the next hours on this 
bill.
  Should that not be the case, in either case, I certainly sound notice 
today that I, and others in the Senate, intend to work to amend this 
provision over the course of the next months or year so that it 
produces at least the beneficial outcome originally sought and agreed 
to by the committee itself.
  In closing, Madam President, I do want to compliment the Senator from 
Montana and I want to compliment the Senator from Rhode Island, because 
the fact is that this is an important bill, notwithstanding those 
criticisms that I have just expressed. They have worked hard to bring 
this bill to the floor, and we do want it passed. There are a number of 
important features in it.
  In establishing a new State revolving loan program to fund very much 
needed infrastructure improvements, they have made a very significant 
step forward. By providing small systems with low-cost technology and 
flexibility to meet requirements, and by eliminating the current 
mandates for regulating a fixed number of contaminants per year, 
regardless of the public health benefits, they have made an important 
move to get communities in a worthwhile relationship with the Federal 
Government in order to produce a valuable outcome. I congratulate them 
for that, and it will prove to be helpful to communities.
  This bill improves the likelihood that our citizens will have 
healthy, high-quality drinking water, while taking into account the 
varying circumstances of those communities and States around the 
Nation.
  I must say, though, we do not have much time on some of these issues. 
We have some communities that have sole source aquifers, and they are 
in very fragile condition. The aquifer under the central part of this 
country, which runs under the State of the presiding Senator and across 
the central part of this Nation, is in delicate condition, is in 
diminished quantity, and has increasing stresses on it.
  We should be thinking more not in terms of how we are going to build 
pipes to divert the Colorado River and create a whole set of problems 
similar to those we created in the Columbia River, where we now do not 
have the salmon we used to have because of what dams have done, but we 
need to consider the potential outcomes ahead of time.
  That was the effort the committee was trying to make, and I regret 
enormously that there is an amendment that diminishes the pollution 
prevention components of this bill.
  I thank the Chair.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                U.S. Environmental


                                            Protection Agency,

                                     Washington, DC, May 12, 1994.
     Hon. Max Baucus
     Chairman, Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I deeply appreciate your leadership and 
     dedicated efforts to guide S. 2019, the Safe Drinking Water 
     Act reauthorization bill, through the many and conflicting 
     demands on its reform.
       On April 28, I wrote to reiterate the Administration's 
     support for S. 2019 as approved by the Environment and Public 
     Works Committee. In my letter, I indicated that the bill's 
     approach toward safeguards for public health and new reforms 
     is especially critical, and that I would let you know of any 
     concerns should later amendments threaten that balance in key 
     areas. I believe S. 2019, as revised by the Managers' 
     Amendment you have assembled, reflects your commitment to 
     achieve such a balance.
       I am, however, concerned about two issues. Among the 
     Administration's highest reauthorization priorities is source 
     water protection, which simply means pollution prevention--
     shielding rivers, lakes, streams and wells from which the 
     public draws its drinking water from becoming contaminated in 
     the first place. In many instances, source protection can be 
     far less costly than is the filtration that would be required 
     if the water gets polluted. The Administration proposes that 
     States develop source water assessment programs, with the 
     flexibility for local governments voluntarily to develop 
     protection plans to implement protection of their source 
     water.
       We are concerned that some amendments under discussion 
     would effectively deny local governments this opportunity and 
     flexibility. As a former state official, I believe that the 
     approval process proposed in these amendments is so 
     burdensome that it may be more of a deterrent than an 
     inducement to undertake voluntary pollution prevention 
     through source protection. Many states may, accordingly, 
     decline to adopt an approval process, which would then thwart 
     voluntary source protection plans in those states.
       With regard to the state viability program in another 
     amendment, we think the program contains a workable structure 
     to protect federal taxpayers' new investments in water 
     infrastructure. However, we continue to believe that there 
     are many additional techniques that should be used--such as 
     employing circuit riders for operations and maintenance, 
     sharing fiscal personnel, and cooperative procurement--by 
     which water systems can improve their capabilities to 
     safeguard drinking water, and save money.
       I look forward to continuing to work with you on this vital 
     public health legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Carol M. Browner.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2

                                      National Roundtable of State


                                Pollution Prevention Programs,

                                     Washington, DC, May 12, 1994.
       Dear Senator: The National Roundtable of State Pollution 
     Prevention Programs (the Roundtable), supports the pollution 
     prevention provisions of the 1994 Amendments to the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act (S. 2019). The Roundtable, the largest 
     national membership organization in the country devoted 
     solely to the improvement of environmental quality through 
     pollution prevention, also supports the bill's finding that 
     states need increased funding to implement safe drinking 
     water programs.
       The Roundtable urges the Senate to more clearly establish 
     pollution prevention, in particular source reduction, as the 
     fundamental approach to protecting our drinking water supply. 
     S. 2019 should be strengthened by including more pollution 
     prevention measures that stress source reduction rather than 
     control.
       S. 2019 would require each state to establish a process for 
     reviewing and approving pollution prevention plans initiated 
     by localities and public water systems. It encourages efforts 
     to create these plans by making a small amount of federal 
     state revolving loan funds available for this purpose. 
     Although the bill provides for a constructive partnerships 
     between local, state and federal agencies, it should go 
     further by establishing a process to involve localities and 
     citizens in the development of policies and programs from the 
     beginning of the process.
       While the bill would require states to act, it does not 
     require the creation of source water protection plans. Under 
     S. 2019 source water plans are voluntary on the part of local 
     water systems, local agencies or state governments.
       The Roundtable strongly urges that the Source Water 
     Protection Program section promoting pollution prevention not 
     be weakened. It is critical to the protection of the nation's 
     drinking water supplies that efforts to prevent contamination 
     in the first place remain intact in this legislation. We urge 
     the Senate to strengthen the source reduction focus of this 
     bill and to reject any attempts to weaken the pollution 
     prevention provisions in S. 2019.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Kevin Dick,
                                                    Vice Chairman.
                                  ____

         Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of 
           Environmental Affairs, Department of Environmental 
           Protection,
                                         Boston, MA, May 11, 1994.
     Hon. John Kerry,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.

     Attention Ms. Kate English.
       Dear Senator Kerry: Massachusetts is committed to source 
     water protection as the best means of ensuring safe and pure 
     drinking water to the public, while preventing very costly 
     treatment measures. We believe that the ``Baucus Bill'', S. 
     2019 (``Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994'') will go 
     a long way toward affording such protection.
       It has come to our attention that Senators Warner and 
     Conrad have proposed further amendments which will seriously 
     weaken the Baucus Bill. I write to strongly urge you to 
     oppose the amendments to this bill proposed by Senators 
     Warner and Conrad. Thank you for your attention to this 
     matter, and to the Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization.
           Sincerely,

                                               David Y. Terry,

                                                         Director,
                                         Division of Water Supply.
                                  ____



                               National Water Funding Council,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 1994.
     Senator Max Baucus,
     Chairman, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, 
         Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Baucus: The National Water Funding Council 
     understands that your proposal for the Safe Drinking Water 
     Act, S. 2019, will go to the Senate floor for consideration 
     within the next week.
       We ask that you retain the State Source Water Protection 
     (SWP) Program that is in S. 2019, and not substitute Senator 
     Warner's amendment--the ``Water Quality Protection 
     Partnership'' instead. We view your original SWP program as 
     voluntary, cost-effective way of implementing pollution 
     prevention measures into the SDWA, a step that really must 
     occur in the next generation of clean water work that the 
     country undertakes.
       Your SWP Program is sufficiently advantageous to what 
     Senator Warner has proposed that we recommend that you not 
     modify its substantive provisions. You might, however, 
     consider making projects approved under SWP plans eligible 
     for financial assistance under Title I of the S. 2019 as well 
     as Section 319 and Title VI of the CWA, so as to provide 
     states with as much flexibility as possible in determining 
     how best to assist financially with these projects.
           Sincerely,
                                              Jonathan C. Kaledin.
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                     American Oceans Campaign,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 1994.
     Hon. John Kerry,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: The American Oceans Campaign would like 
     to express our support for the source water protection 
     provisions in S. 2019, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and our 
     opposition to the Warner/Conrad amendment, which strikes this 
     protection.
       We believe that pollution prevention is perhaps the most 
     cost effective method of protecting consumers from the 
     pathogens and contaminants that can affect their drinking 
     water.
       By requiring states to establish a process for reviewing 
     and approving pollution prevention plans initiated by 
     localities and public water systems, the costs of cleanup and 
     treatment could be reduced significantly, in addition to 
     improving the quality of water provided to consumers.
       American Oceans Campaign believes that a strong source 
     water protection plan is essential to a sound drinking water 
     program. We applaud your leadership on this important issue, 
     and we encourage you to urge your colleagues to vote against 
     the Warner/Conrad amendment.
           Sincerly,
                                                    Dawn Hamilton,
                                                  Issues Director.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time? The Senator from 
Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I want to compliment the Senator from 
Massachusetts. I agree with the Senator from Massachusetts that an 
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
  Essentially, what we are trying to do is help provide for more safe 
drinking water in our country and to not only be sure that we have the 
technology in place to clean up the water that is dirty, but also to 
prevent dirty water from coming to communities in the first place.
  The source water protection program in the bill is a concept which is 
needed, whether it is proposed by States or by the Federal Government. 
It is a concept that makes good sense. The more we can address the 
source in the first place by making sure that the water is clean and 
safe before it comes into the community drinking water system, the more 
likely it is that people are going to have safer, cleaner water. It is 
just that simple.
  In current law, we have a sole source aquifer program; we have the 
wellhead protection program. They are a start. They are what their 
names imply. The sole source aquifer program is in place to help 
communities assure that the source is clean. The same is true with the 
wellhead protection program.
  Unfortunately, those programs are essentially voluntary. A State or 
community can have its own program, either under sole source aquifer or 
under the wellhead protection program.
  In the bill, we wanted to advance the concept of source water 
protection. In the bill we did provide, as the Senator from 
Massachusetts says, that the States are required to set up a process 
under which communities can develop a plan for technical assistance and 
for other kinds of measures that help assure that the source water is 
protected.
  The bill did not give States any new authority. It did not say that 
States can mandate or require communities to undertake any action. 
There was no provision in the bill which gave States new authority to 
do anything like that. Rather, the bill required States to set up a 
process under which communities would develop a source water protection 
plan.
  Unfortunately, there are many people in the country who are very 
nervous about that program. They are concerned that it would give too 
much authority to States and impinge upon upstream users, or source 
users. The concern was that the program would give cities, towns, and 
communities too much authority within the city limits and/or it would 
give States too much authority in restricting what farmers, ranchers or 
anybody upstream, or in the source area, could or could not do.
  Madam President, we have to move the concept of source water 
protection a step at a time. I do believe that the amendment offered by 
the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] and the Senator from North 
Dakota [Mr. Conrad] is a way to move the concept of source water 
protection forward. That is what we want to do here, take a step at a 
time. Otherwise, we run the risk of having no source water protection 
improvement over current law. We have to improve upon the present 
concept, and the amendment offered by the Senators from Virginia and 
North Dakota help assure that we have a significantly better source 
water protection program now than under current law.
  I must say, Madam President, that a lot of this really is joined with 
other legislation, such as the Clean Water Act, which will be before 
the Senate in the next 2 or 3 weeks.
  I say that because the changes to the Clean Water Act will address 
nonpoint source pollution. Nonpoint source pollution is pollution 
caused by runoff from agriculture, timber harvests, mining tailings, 
and urban runoff. That is, runoff, as opposed to what is referred to in 
technical jargon as point source pollution, which is pipes discharging 
into the rivers. That is point source.
  In the new Clean Water Act, we are going to be addressing nonpoint 
source runoff--a very needed program. Half of the water pollution in 
our country today is caused by nonpoint source runoff. In the Clean 
Water Act that will be coming before the Senate shortly, we have a very 
valid program which will tell States that they have to have a nonpoint 
source pollution program to address the problem that exists in each of 
our States.
  That program will help address the source water protection problem 
because a large portion of the pollution that may affect drinking water 
systems is nonpoint source pollution, which will be addressed in 
another bill.
  To sum up, Madam President, I agree with the Senator from 
Massachusetts. We have to have a very good, strong source water 
protection program, but like a lot of matters, if we go too far, if we 
give too much authority to States which is not thought through as much 
as we would like it to be, we could jeopardize the whole source water 
protection program.
  I strongly believe that the provisions of the bill, as modified by 
the Senators from North Dakota and Virginia, help solidify and 
consolidate support for a stronger source water protection program. 
That is why I think the amendment is an improvement. And secondly, most 
of the source water protection problem really is nonpoint pollution, 
which will be addressed very definitely very significantly in the Clean 
Water Act, as opposed to the Safe Drinking Water Act, which will be 
before the Senate in the next 2 or 3 weeks.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Montana. As 
I have said, I understand the pressures on him and what he needs to do 
to get an important bill passed. I still want to say to him and the 
Senator from Rhode Island, maybe we can work out something in the next 
day or two. I have not had a chance yet to engage with Senator Warner 
and Senator Conrad.
  But I must say, respectfully, I have been around the environmental 
movement long enough and I have been involved in these issues and been 
in the Senate now long enough to have learned what happens if the fox 
is guarding the chicken coop. We all know what happens. The permissive 
language allowing the very community that is an offender community, 
where all of the economic interests of that community are weighted 
against their making this decision, which is why they want the watered-
down language in the first place, if they are left to their own 
devices, to just spontaneously come in with a petition, as the Warner-
Conrad amendment suggests, it is not going to happen. We all know that. 
That is why we have a fight over the Superfund. That is why we had a 
fight over the Clean Water Act originally. That is why we had to press 
for the Clean Air Act over the vociferous objections of automobile 
manufacturers. We all know how tough a struggle it is.
  If the language remains that it is just--which is how the language 
reads now--that a State may establish a program under which a local 
community may submit a petition, it is not going to happen, because the 
State that is predominantly configured around that particular industry, 
and a local community which is even more so, has no interest whatsoever 
to tackle this program. This is why we have always had a struggle 
between the Federal Government and local entities about things we ought 
to do versus things we kind of do not want to do.
  Everybody knows how human nature works. That is the process of 
politics. It is what the debates are about--things we know we ought to 
do as human beings versus the immediate interests that temper our 
willingness to do that until X, Y or Z becomes such a crisis that we 
finally mobilize and do it, as in South Africa, where they finally 
mobilized and said, yes, indeed, people have to be free.
  By the same token, that is what the environmental movement is. People 
said, yes, we have to breathe clean air; yes, we have to drink safe 
water; no, we do not want lead in our water; no, we do not want to 
pollute all our bays and estuaries; and so we dragged the contravening 
interests reluctantly to the table, and the language that has been put 
forward here offers no incentive whatsoever to come to the table.
  So I hear the Senator. I know what he wants to do, but I also know 
what this language leaves us. It leaves us no requirement that people 
try to think ahead and remediate.
  Now, in the original bill--I did not write the original bill 
language, the committee did--in the original bill language, the 
committee had the good sense to balance between the local communities' 
rights and prerogatives and interests and this tension with the larger 
entities of our government, either State or Federal. And it did not 
mandate any local community to come in and do this. It did, however, 
require a State to have a process available so that the local 
communities that want to participate have something fixed in concrete 
which will enable them to do so.
  Now what happens in the Warner-Conrad amendment is that the State is 
not required to participate, so that the one local community that might 
want to be proactive cannot do so if it so chooses because the other 
entities that do not want protective measures will prevent the State 
from even setting up the process. And so it will deny those local 
communities that do want to use good common sense from even exercising 
their good common sense.
  So, Madam President, it is simply not good legislation. It is not 
good public policy.
  I try to be as reasonable as anybody around here about excessive 
mandates and burdensome regulations and endless government red tape.
  I hate them just like everybody else. But that is not what we have 
here. Actually, it is just the opposite. The bill here makes good sense 
by, frankly, reducing some of those things. It makes no sense to 
require communities to get rid of particulates in water that have 
nothing to do with health or that go way beyond the health standards. 
That is what prior legislation did. We have often done that in 
Congress. And if we have some unreasonable regulations, we ought to 
bend over backwards to get rid of them where we can.
  But we also must strive to create a relationship between the Federal, 
State and local communities that can work to promote proactive, 
preventive measures. We cannot continue to erode the resources of this 
Nation and then tell the next generation we are sorry, but you are 
going to have to pay billions of dollars to clean up the mess we know 
we should not have made.
  That is generationally irresponsible. It is currently irresponsible. 
And we just should not do that.
  So I respectfully hope we can work a balance. I am not trying to ask 
anybody to establish some terrible, bureaucratic process where the 
vicissitudes of public officials wreak havoc on people's good efforts. 
But by the same token, we must strive for the innovative Federal-State-
community partnerships that can prevent crisis management.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I do not wish to prolong the discussion. 
I again compliment the Senator from Massachusetts. He is right in 
concept. We should have a strong source water protection program. I 
just remind all of us that the bill never required communities to have 
a source water protection program. States were required to have a 
process to facilitate and approve system source water plans. Even under 
the bill, as amended, communities can still apply for money from the 
Clean Water Act revolving loan fund for technical assistance for source 
water protection programs.
  Basically, we are in a situation where we have to find a balance 
between State control and Federal control. We are not 50 nations. We 
are not one nation. We are one country of 50 States. No other country 
in the world shares exactly our form of government. We also have 
divided powers. We are a nonparliamentary form of government.
  It is interesting that drinking water traditionally is under the 
rubric of State control because States generally have control over 
their own public health and safety. It is like crime. Crime enforcement 
is essentially a State matter, the same with health enforcement, 
including drinking water enforcement.
  Drinking water is more of a real matter than, say, air which tends to 
cross State boundaries more than drinking water. Of course, we 
Americans travel a lot. That makes drinking water quality more of a 
Federal matter.
  Under the bill as amended by Senators Warner and Conrad, a State 
could have a stronger source water protection program if it wanted it 
on its own. I am sure Massachusetts has good strong environmental 
leanings. So Massachusetts could set up its own strong source water 
protection projects, as could Wisconsin, Montana, or any other State.
  I think when a community in any State applies for assistance under 
the clean water revolving loan fund, States are going to realize that 
they ought to support source water protection projects because an ounce 
of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It makes sense. We are really 
splitting hairs here. We are on the way toward a good program.
  I really do not want to prolong this debate. I therefore will stop 
because I see Senators on the floor who have amendments.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I do not want to prolong the debate. I 
ask my colleague a simple question: was there not a requirement in the 
original committee print that the States do something; a requirement?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, there was a requirement that they ``do 
something'' but the ``something'' was not that they have to have a 
source water protection program. There was nothing in the bill that 
required States to set up a source water protection program. Rather, 
the provision in the bill required States to have a process under which 
a system would develop a source water protection plan. If a system 
wanted to have their own source water protection program, then there 
would be a process through which the State could approve it. But, there 
was no requirement that the State have a program.
  Mr. KERRY. What the Senator from Montana is saying is, there was a 
requirement. He just said, yes. There was a requirement that the States 
have a review process so that the communities could apply. Now with the 
Warner-Conrad amendment there is no requirement that States have that 
review process. So as I said, the States had been required to 
participate and the local communities had been able to apply, and now 
the States are not required to have a review process and local 
community are not guaranteed they can apply. We do not need to prolong 
this.
  Mr. BAUCUS. As I said, Madam President, if a State wants to, there is 
nothing to prevent a State from having it. Massachusetts, any State 
that wants to, Illinois, can set up its own process, whatever it wants. 
We are not prohibiting States from doing what States think they should 
do.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Thank you, Madam President.


                           Amendment No. 1707

   (Purpose: To require the Administrator to develop and carry out a 
research plan to support the development and implementation of certain 
         rules concerning harmful substances in drinking water)

  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], for himself, Mr. 
     Jeffords, and Mr. Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1707.

  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . RESEARCH PLAN FOR HARMFUL SUBSTANCES IN DRINKING 
                   WATER.

       Section 1412 (42 U.S.C. 300g-1) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Research Plan for Harmful Substances in Drinking 
     Water.--
       ``(1) Development of plan.--The Administrator shall--
       ``(A) not later than September 30, 1994, develop a research 
     plan to support the development and implementation of the 
     most current version of the--
       ``(i) enhanced surface water treatment rule (announced at 
     59 Fed. Reg. 6332 (February 10, 1994));
       ``(ii) disinfectant and disinfection byproduct rule (Stage 
     2) (announced at 59 Fed. Reg. 6332 (February 10, 1994)); and
       ``(iii) ground water disinfection rule (availability of 
     draft summary announced at 57 Fed. Reg. 33960 (July 31, 
     1992)); and
       ``(B) carry out the research plan.
       ``(2) Contents of plan.--
       ``(A) In general.--The research plan shall include, at a 
     minimum--
       ``(i) an identification and characterization of new 
     disinfection byproducts associated with the use of different 
     disinfectants;
       ``(ii) toxicological and epidemiological studies to 
     determine what levels of exposure from disinfectants and 
     disinfection byproducts, if any, may be associated with 
     developmental and birth defects and other potential toxic end 
     points;
       ``(iii) toxicological and epidemiological studies to 
     quantify the carcinogenic potential from exposure to 
     disinfection byproducts resulting from different 
     disinfectants;
       ``(iv) the development of practical analytical methods for 
     enumerating microbial contaminants, including giardia, 
     cryptosporidium, and viruses;
       ``(v) the development of dose-response curves for 
     pathogens, including cryptosporidium and the Norwalk virus;
       ``(vi) the development of indicators that define treatment 
     effectiveness for pathogens and disinfection byproducts; and
       ``(vii) bench, pilot, and full-scale studies and 
     demonstration projects to evaluate optimized conventional 
     treatment, ozone, granular activated carbon, and membrane 
     technology for controlling pathogens (including 
     cryptosporidium) and disinfection byproducts.
       ``(B) Risk definition strategy.--The research plan shall 
     include a strategy for determining the risks and estimated 
     extent of disease resulting from pathogens, disinfectants, 
     and disinfection byproducts in drinking water, and how the 
     risks can most effectively be controlled, taking into 
     consideration the costs of various control methods and the 
     sizes of various systems.
       ``(3) Implementation of plan.--In carrying out the research 
     plan, the Administrator shall use the most cost-effective 
     mechanisms available, including coordination of research 
     with, and use of matching funds from institutions and 
     utilities.
       ``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection 
     $12,500,000 for each of fiscal years 1995 through 1998.''.
  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, last April, the city of Milwaukee 
experienced a disastrous outbreak of a parasite called cryptosporidium 
in the drinking water supply. By the time that all the particles in the 
water had settled, 104 people were dead, and over 400,000 others had 
become severely ill.
  This amendment is about that incident. It is about the 104 people who 
died in Milwaukee. It is about the 400,000 Milwaukee residents who 
battled weeks of debilitating illness, and I am sorry to say, it is 
about those people who, 1 year later, still fight a daily battle to rid 
their bodies of the intestinal disease called cryptosporidiosis.
  The bill that we are considering today recognizes the need to move 
forward in setting standards for communities to use in protecting their 
citizens from contamination. EPA has negotiated, with all interested 
parties, several regulations to require testing and treatment for 
cryptosporidium and other parasites to assure that an outbreak like 
Mikwaukee's never happens again. And this negotiated rulemaking will 
also set standards to assure that the disinfectants that our 
communities use to ward off parasite threats do not themselves create 
health risks. The Safe Drinking Water Act bill reported out of 
Committee includes a time line for EPA to implement protections from 
cryptosporidium and other parasites, and I thank the Senator from 
Montana for his efforts on this matter.
  But what this bill does not do is require EPA to improve the state of 
science in order to support these necessary regulations. Our 
communities do not only need to know when to test and treat for 
cryptosporidium, they also need to know how to do so, and they need to 
know that there is an ongoing research program to perfect the testing 
and treatment methods. That is the purpose for this amendment.
  Madam President, for decades we in this country have prided ourselves 
on the quality of our drinking water. We hear warnings about drinking 
the water while traveling abroad in nations less developed than ours, 
where waterborne diseases are commonplace. But we have become 
complacent about our own drinking water--perhaps too complacent.
  The implications of the Milwaukee outbreak are far-reaching. Despite 
the devastation experienced by Milwaukee and other communities, our 
understanding of the threat and appropriate treatment for parasite 
contamination in drinking water is very limited.
  I want my colleagues to understand that the threat is not only in 
Milwaukee. Over the past 10 years, incidents of crypto- sporidiosis 
have been reported in many communities across the country, including 
San Antonio, TX; Carrollton, GA; and Jackson County, OR, to name a few. 
And unfortunately cryptosporidium is just one in a long list of 
parasites that cause widespread disease in this Nation every year.
  Yet despite the warning signs of these outbreaks, EPA funding for 
research on parasite contamination in drinking water is next to 
nothing, leaving our communities with little scientific guidance on how 
best to protect their citizens. EPA, and Congress, have been too 
occupied with other concerns to respond to what's been staring us in 
the face. I offer this amendment to reverse that negligence.
  My amendment will require EPA to institute a broad research plan, in 
partnership with the private sector and research institutions, to 
improve the state of science regarding parasite contamination in 
drinking water. The amendment will also require EPA to conduct research 
to allow us to better understand how disinfectants we use to ward off 
parasite threats affect our health. On-site pilot studies will be 
conducted in various locations around the country to determine how 
different treatment methods react in different environments. In this 
context, I believe that Milwaukee should be one of several EPA study 
sites.
  The amendment is supported by a broad list of utility, research, and 
environmental groups. It is supported by the American Society of 
Microbiologists, Natural Resources Defense Council, American 
Metropolitan Waterworks Association, Friends of the Earth, the City of 
Milwaukee, Sierra Club, National Association of Water Companies, and 
American Waterworks Association.
  And I thank Senators Jeffords and Feingold for cosponsoring the 
amendment.
  I believe that this amendment has been cleared on both sides of the 
aisle. I would like to offer my thanks for the support and cooperation 
that I received from the comanagers of this bill, the Senator from 
Montana and the Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, the amendment offered by the Senator 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl] I think, is a good amendment because it is 
needed. It is needed because we have a very complex difficult problem 
facing a lot of communities--the cryptosporidium problem in Milwaukee, 
and a similar problem here in Washington, DC.
  The problem, very generally, is that when communities attempt to 
control microbial contaminants in their system, they add disinfectants 
like chlorine, for example, to clean the water and address the 
microbial contaminants.
  When you add disinfectants, however, you may solve one problem but 
sometimes cause another. There are byproducts from these disinfectants 
which themselves can be cancer causing. We are facing Hobson's choice; 
we are in a dilemma. This amendment is needed to address this dilemma.
  We need the research to find out how to resolve this dilemma and to 
perhaps find new, better disinfectants which do not create the 
byproduct problem that we otherwise face. It is a very complex matter, 
and I commend the Senator from Wisconsin for offering the amendment to 
require research for the disinfectant byproduct problem, including the 
cryptosporidium. I compliment the Senator.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, this amendment is agreeable to this 
side. I know that the situation in Milwaukee was an extremely serious 
one. I have here an article from the Milwaukee Journal of last 
September, which describes the seriousness that occurred when the water 
purification system or the elements used in the purification got out of 
context or out of balance and very serious illnesses developed. I think 
it is accurate to say that there are some deaths traceable to this. How 
many could be exactly traceable to the problems within the water is not 
easy to discern, but certainly I get the impression that there may be 
as many as 12 or 13. Is that correct, Senator?
  Mr. KOHL. Well, there were over 100 deaths traceable to the problem.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Over 100. This amendment has been discussed with the EPA, 
and they are agreeable to it. So I think it is a fine amendment, and I 
join in support of it.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator very much and, of course, Senator 
Baucus for their support and cooperation for what I think is a real 
problem that needs to be addressed.
  As I pointed out in my statement, it is not just in Milwaukee, but 
all across our country. I think all 50 States will benefit from this 
research. I thank you very much.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1707) 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. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico is 
recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I would like to take just a few 
moments of the Senate's time to discuss with my colleague, Senator 
Smith from New Hampshire, an important issue that the two of us have 
raised in legislation that was introduced earlier this year. It is an 
issue that I raised on Monday and an issue addressed by an amendment 
that is on file at the desk.
  The issue is: How can we provide States with the needed flexibility 
to more efficiently manage their environmental programs?
  Madam President, our society has become increasingly complex. We all 
live in this complex society and, at the same time, want to see a safe 
environment, to breathe clean air, to drink healthy water, to see solid 
waste disposal accomplished in a responsible manner. Because we want to 
achieve these goals, the Federal legislation and regulatory 
requirements have become extremely extensive. These requirements have 
imposed burdens on States, forcing them to utilize their very scarce 
resources to implement Federal environmental programs. In many 
instances, States are being asked to implement programs addressing 
Federal priorities which, in fact, are of lesser concern and potential 
risk in those individual States than other priorities that they have 
identified.
  In short, many national requirements fail to recognize that our 
States differ between and within themselves. What might be of most 
concern to one State due to its particular circumstances may be 
relatively unimportant in another.
  Our Federal funding assistance that we generally make available is 
restricted to the priorities we determine at the national level. In 
many cases, this prevents more effective use of funds for what the 
State identifies as its own needs.
  In my home State of New Mexico, we are, of course, committed to 
protecting the environment. At times, we have found ourselves strapped 
for funds with which to carry out the Federal laws. Federal funds that 
are available are limited to problems that we consider to be of lower 
priority. So, in my view, the time has come for the Nation to recognize 
that States are full partners in protecting the environment. They are 
knowledgeable about the problems within their jurisdictions. States 
want to use their resources as effectively as possible, and I believe 
we need to give them the flexibility to allocate resources to the 
highest environmental priorities.
  These are the reasons that, last November, I introduced a bill, 
Senate bill 1687, with Senator Smith as a cosponsor, to provide States 
with this needed flexibility to integrate the various existing State 
grant programs that the EPA administers.
  The bill does provide flexibility, but it also continues to protect 
the environment. There is widespread support from State environmental 
commissioners for our legislation. There is good support from other 
colleagues in the Senate and, in fact, the EPA has indicated support 
for this concept. However, they have not been able to go forward with 
implementation, since there is not the statutory authority that is 
necessary. Our intent was to offer this legislation on the Safe 
Drinking Water Act. At this point, I will yield to my cosponsor, 
Senator Smith, for his statement and any summary he wants to make on 
the legislation.
  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for 
yielding. I wish to compliment him on a piece of legislation which I 
think is very important to the States and very helpful in environmental 
cleanup. As my colleague has mentioned, States need flexibility in 
managing their environmental grants. They do not have that flexibility 
now.
  New Hampshire, for example, my home State, would like to use the 
grant funds they receive for their highest environmental priorities, 
the priorities they believe in their own State and communities are the 
highest priorities, not what somebody in Washington determines to be 
the highest priority.
  In addition, the development of flexibility was one of the key 
findings of a State capacity task force report developed by the States 
and EPA. So, in essence, the thrust of this amendment is to support 
what the States want to do, as well as the EPA.
  Specifically, the Bingaman-Smith amendment would, one, enable States 
to consolidate their funds--the funds that are awarded by the EPA under 
separate grant authorities--into one of a limited number of 
environmental grants.
  Second, it would allow the States to transfer up to 20 percent of the 
grant funds from one environmental program to another if the State 
identifies the greater need in another one of those programs.
  Third, it would follow a common set of administrative requirements 
rather than have this complex network of different administrative 
requirements for all the various environmental programs.
  I want to also point out that this amendment does not seek additional 
funding authority. Instead, it will enable States to better use the 
Federal funds being made available for environmental purposes. And, 
more importantly, this amendment would significantly enhance a State's 
ability to direct scarce resources to the most serious environmental 
problems.
  Madam President, I say to the chairman I would hope we could 
seriously consider this amendment. State and local governments are 
required to comply with a host of different environmental regulations. 
As you well know, we have regulations pertaining to clean air, clean 
water, safe drinking water, solid waste disposal, and Superfund.
  For some States, clean water may be a higher priority, not because it 
is less important but because the need might be greater to direct the 
resources there, or in another case it might be hazardous waste.
  But right now the States cannot prioritize these environmental 
objectives and we are not asking them to walk away from the problems or 
ignore their problems under this legislation. We are simply allowing 
them to shift some funding--only 20 percent--which could very well make 
a difference.
  So I hope, I say to the chairman, that we could see some movement on 
this amendment. I compliment my colleague. It is an excellent idea, one 
long overdue, and I am very pleased to join with him in cosponsoring 
the amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I sympathize with the amendment of the 
Senators from New Mexico and New Hampshire.
  It is true, that States want a lot more flexibility. I have never 
talked to a Governor, mayor or State official who did not want more 
flexibility with respect to Federal funds. You hear it all the time. 
That is definitely true.
  It is also true that more is needed than currently is provided. We do 
not, however, want to give total discretion to the States if the 
Federal taxpayers are providing the revenue and Congress provides the 
programs and dollars to States. We want to make sure those dollars are 
spent in the way intended. The question is what is the best way to deal 
with the issue.
  In this legislation, Madam President, we are going a long, long way 
to address the need for flexibility, that States need.
  How are we doing it?
  No. 1, this legislation provides a new revolving loan fund for States 
to address the needs of drinking water systems.
  We provide that up to 50 percent of the total amount in the safe 
drinking water State revolving loan fund, at the discretion of the 
Governor, may be transferred to Clean Water Act needs, namely, waste 
water and sewage treatment needs.
  We also provide for reverse flexibility. A Governor can transfer what 
amounts to 50 percent of the State safe drinking water fund from the 
clean water fund over to the safe drinking water fund. Flexibility is 
provided both ways at the discretion of the Governor. It is a start. It 
gives States a lot more flexibility than they now have.
  The amendment offered by the Senators from New Mexico and New 
Hampshire is very interesting. It is a concept that we should take very 
seriously. We should look at it thoroughly to see how much flexibility 
States should have with respect to 20 percent of the environmental 
dollars that the U.S. Government provides them.
  It is far-reaching. It is provocative. It is interesting. It has a 
lot of merit.
  The question is, have we thought this through enough so that it is 
the right thing to do here today?
  Madam President, we are different States. That argues for more 
flexibility. Illinois is not Rhode Island;  it is not New Hampshire; it 
is not New Mexico; it is not Montana. We are all different.

  But that cuts two ways. As States would like carte blanche in 
spending their Federal dollars the way they want to, a neighboring 
State may not be quite so happy about that. For example, a downwind 
State may not be happy if an upwind State decides it is not going to 
spend dollars under the Clean Air Act but rather spend those dollars 
somewhere else. A down-river State may not be too happy the way an 
upriver State addresses its water pollution problem.
  We need to be sure of the interrelationships, to try to get the right 
balance between the total control the States want and the assurance 
that these dollars are spent wisely as they affect other States.
  Madam President, I think the Senators have an excellent idea. It is 
an idea that should be examined thoroughly and worked through.
  I tell the Senators that the Environment and Public Works Committee 
will have hearings on this legislation. We will bring it up and give it 
full airing to see how far we should go down this road in giving States 
flexibility.
  Accordingly, I would urge the Senators not to push their amendment. I 
do think it is a very good idea, an idea that deserves to be examined 
to be sure that whatever we do on this subject we do in the right way.
  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, if the Senator will yield for a response, 
I think it is fair to say that we have thought it through. But I also 
understand the committee process. We certainly would look forward to 
working with the chairman through that committee process to see that 
the issue is addressed.
  I think I would have to defer to Senator Bingaman, as the original 
author of the bill, as to whether or not we would go that route.
  But speaking for myself, I would not object to that because I respect 
the commitment that the chairman has made.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, let me just indicate I appreciate the 
chairman's statement. I look forward to participating in the hearing 
that he has referred to in the Environment and Public Works Committee. 
I think it is appropriate that he suggests we go ahead with a hearing 
on this before we try to enact it.
  I do think it is a good idea. I think it is meritorious legislation. 
But given his agreement to have a hearing, we will defer offering it to 
this particular legislation.
  Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I do want to reinforce the point that 
the chairman of the committee made about the flexibility in this act in 
a very, very big section, and that is the capability of transferring a 
significant portion of funds back and forth between the safe drinking 
water revolving fund and the clean water fund.
  This is a major change. I must say it was a change I greeted with 
some trepidation, and indeed prevailed on the chairman to scale it back 
a bit. Nonetheless, having been a Governor, I am conscious of the 
flexibility that Governors like, but we are certainly giving it to them 
in this particular area.
  I thank the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent if I may proceed 
as if in morning business at the conclusion of which we return to the 
consideration of the bill.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, may I ask the Senator roughly how long 
he wishes to speak?
  Mr. WARNER. I say 6 to 7 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the managers, the Senator from Montana and the 
Senator from Rhode Island.

                          ____________________