[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 61 (Tuesday, May 17, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1994

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] is 
recognized.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, will the Chair kindly advise me on the 
present matter before the Senate?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. What is the Senator's question?
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I would like to ask for the regular order, 
and I would like to make some comments with regard to the Safe Drinking 
Water Act and the amendments thereto.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate is considering the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, and the Senator is recognized.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise to encourage support for the 
managers' compromise amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act 
legislation. I also commend Senators Baucus and Chafee, as well as 
their staffs, for working out with a group of us to put the amendment 
before us that I think will allow the passage of this important 
measure. It has taken months of painstaking negotiations and 
considerable effort to reach this point, and I believe our negotiations 
have resulted in a good product.
  The absolute necessity of reforming the Safe Drinking Water Act has 
been clear to me for some time. I can hardly convey to my colleagues 
the depths of frustration held by State and local officials whose job 
it is to comply with the existing law. By far, the vast majority of 
those folks want to provide clean, safe drinking water and feel 
overwhelmed by a regulatory framework that simply does not make sense 
in the real world.
  The amendment before us meets the essential requirements for reform 
that I have held for some time: that the new law must help small 
communities; that the Environmental Protection Agency must be required 
to base its regulations on science instead of fear; that we absolutely 
have to get rid of the arbitrary standard setting requirements; and, 
finally, that we do this in a way that reduces costs while maintaining 
public health and public safety.
  I have listened to our Governor and other State and local officials 
for months on this subject. Finally, through long, hard negotiations, 
we can say to them that we have heard their legitimate concerns and 
have acted upon them. I am pleased and proud to have played a part in 
bringing a commonsense solution back to them and to the Senate.
  It has been a difficult balancing act. I suspect that there are 
interests on both sides of this issue that wish they had gotten more, 
but, in the end, I believe this represents a fair and a workable 
solution that ought to be embraced by all.
  Although I am confident this measure will receive the support of the 
Senate, I remain uncertain about our prospects when the bill is in 
conference with the House of Representatives. Obviously, the House has 
not yet acted on a bill, and it would be premature to prejudge the 
situation at this point. I simply point out to my colleagues that I 
believe it is incumbent upon us to follow this legislation closely and 
ensure that the final package we send to the President meets the 
criteria that I have outlined above. We ought not wash our hands of 
this legislation once we pass a bill in the Senate.
  With regard to the conference with the House, I also want to raise 
the issue of what we can do to compromise without giving up the 
essentials that I think are tremendously important that we worked out 
on the Senate bill.
  Mr. President, I, once again, salute the two leaders of this bill who 
have gone through painstaking efforts to make sure that we have a bill 
not only that is workable but a bill that can pass the Senate. To them, 
I say thank you for listening, thank you for caring, and thank you for 
providing the leadership to get this job done.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I take my hat off to the Senator from 
Nebraska. He has worked long and hard with the committee to make this a 
better bill. I have had many discussions with the Senator from Nebraska 
in the last couple of months, as with his colleague, Senator Kerrey 
from Nebraska. It is no idle statement, Mr. President, to say very 
clearly that this is a better bill because of the work of the Senator 
from Nebraska.
  The two areas that he particularly focused on were viability--that 
is, the bill is now modified pursuant to amendment by the Nebraska 
delegation, frankly, so that States can now set up voluntary viability 
procedures. States, at their own discretion, would have the power to 
set up a process to help encourage very small water systems to combine, 
consolidate, and to share administrative expenses, and so forth, so 
that they are in the nature of a larger system rather than a smaller 
system.
  Second, the Senator has helped to improve the bill with respect to 
monitoring the flexibility; that is, enabling States to have their own 
State monitoring system more easily so that States can better take 
advantage of the provision of the bill to have different monitoring 
standards, thereby lowering the costs to small systems.
  That is no idle matter, Mr. President. The State of Michigan, for 
example, now spends about 10 to 12 percent on monitoring--the small 
systems in the State of Michigan--because Michigan still has its own 
State monitoring program, compared to what small systems would 
otherwise have to spend if the State did not have its own flexible 
monitoring program. The Senator from Nebraska has come a long way to 
improve the bill so that States can more easily set up their own State 
monitoring systems so that small communities would not have to monitor 
as much as they otherwise would.
  We are not sacrificing public health here, Mr. President, because, 
currently, often a small community would have to monitor for a 
contaminant, even though the contaminant is not found.
  That does not make much sense. So we are providing generally that 
where a contaminant is not found then a small system or a large system 
need not monitor looking for that contaminant for 3 years before it 
must then check again to see whether the contaminant is there or not. 
Previously a system would have to monitor one quarter of each of 3 
years, which was essentially an annual requirement.
  Again, I thank my colleague from Nebraska and appreciate the work he 
has done.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my good friend and colleague, the 
very able and talented chairman of the committee, for his kind remarks. 
Once again I salute him and his counterpart from Rhode Island for 
charting us a course through some very troubled water to the end 
product that I think will be a good one.
  Once again, there were a lot of us who had some major concerns in 
this area. We were listened to. They heard us and they have acted.
  Again I hope that the Senate will support this version of the 
important legislation and we can get on with making sure that we do 
have indeed safe drinking water for all Americans.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The absence of a quorum has been 
suggested. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment no. 1711

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. DeConcini] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1711.

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

     SEC.   . SEWAGE TREATMENT ALONG THE UNITED STATES-MEXICO 
                   BORDER.

       (a) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Border state.--The term ``border State'' means each of 
     the following States:
       (A) Arizona.
       (B) California.
       (C) New Mexico.
       (D) Texas.
       (3) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the 
     International Boundary and Water Commission, or a successor 
     agency of the International Boundary and Water Commission.
       (4) Commissioner.--The term ``Commissioner'' means the 
     United States Commissioner of the International Boundary and 
     Water Commission, or the head of a successor agency of the 
     International Boundary and Water Commission.
       (5) Construction.--The term ``construction'' has the 
     meaning provided the term under section 212(1) of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1292(1)).
       (6) Treatment works.--The term ``treatment works'' has the 
     meaning provided the term under section 212(2) of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1292(2)).
       (7) Border area.--The term ``border area'' has the meaning 
     provided the term under Article 4 of the Agreement Between 
     The United States Of America And The United Mexican States On 
     Cooperation For The Protection And Improvement Of The 
     Environment In The Border Area (signed August 14, 1983, 
     commonly known as the ``La Paz Agreement'').
       (b) Construction Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Administrator is authorized to--
       (A) transfer funds--
       (i) to the Secretary of State, who shall transfer the funds 
     to the Commissioner for use by the head of the United States 
     Section of the Commission to carry out an eligible project 
     described in paragraph (2); or
       (ii) To the head of any other Federal agency to carry out 
     an eligible project described in paragraph (2); and
       (B) make a grant--
       (i) to an appropriate entity designated by the President; 
     or
       (ii) to a border State;

     to pay for the Federal share of the cost of carrying out an 
     eligible project described in paragraph (2).
       (2) Eligible project.--An eligible project described in 
     this paragraph is a project for the construction of--
       (A) a treatment works to protect the public health, 
     environment, and water quality from pollution resulting from 
     inadequacies or breakdowns in treatment works and water 
     systems from Mexican wastewater affecting United States 
     waters or water and sewage systems; and
       (B) a treatment works to provide treatment of municipal 
     sewage and industrial waste in the United States-Mexico 
     border area for treatment of high priority international 
     wastewater pollution problems;

     constructed under appropriate standards under the laws of the 
     United States and Mexico and under applicable treaties and 
     international agreements.
       (3) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     carrying out an eligible project that is the subject of a 
     transfer or grant under paragraph (1) shall be 100 percent.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) Available funds.--The Administrator is authorized to 
     use such funds as made available to the Environmental 
     Protection Agency under the heading ``WATER INFRASTRUCTURE/
     STATE REVOLVING FUNDS'' under the heading ``ENVIRONMENTAL 
     PROTECTION AGENCY'' in title III of the Departments of 
     Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 (Public Law 
     103-124; 107 Stat. 1294), as is necessary to carry out this 
     section.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency to 
     carry out this section such sums as may be necessary for 
     fiscal year 1995, and for each fiscal year thereafter.

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I thank and indeed compliment the 
Senator from Montana for his effort in bringing this bill to the floor, 
as well as his work on other environmental bills such as the Superfund 
and other issues before us in a very busy period for this Congress.
  The Safe Drinking Water Act is a very, very important piece of 
legislation that is needed in this country for the good health and the 
quality of life of Americans. It is really something that we have to 
address and continue to address.
  The Senator from Montana and the Senator from Rhode Island have been 
the leaders in this environmental effort for some time, and I think it 
is only appropriate that we are here to vote to pass this legislation.
  Mr. President, the amendment that I have just sent to the desk would 
merely authorize the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency to transfer funds to the Secretary of State, appropriate Federal 
agency heads and other appropriate entities for waste water treatment 
projects to protect public health, the environment, and the water 
quality along the United States-Mexico border.
  We on the southwest border are really plagued with problems created 
by our neighbors to the south because of the immense population growth 
in that whole country, but in particular, the growth along Mexico's 
northern borders. It has a lot to do with pre-NAFTA discussions, with 
the different economic programs and job stimulation in the Maquiladoras 
that have brought an immense migration to the northern states of Mexico 
because of their proximity to the United States. As a result, we have 
an environmental disaster on our hands. I will discuss just one that 
happens to be in my State in a few minutes.
  Why wastewater treatment on the Safe Drinking Water Act? Well, it is 
a good question but there is a good answer. In some areas on our 
border, we have exposed raw sewage flowing through a community in what 
we call washes or dry river beds, in Arizona most of the year there is 
no water in these washes except this sewage coming from Mexico into 
Arizona. The same is true for parts of Texas, New Mexico, and 
California where the geography of streams flows north instead of to the 
south as is normal in other parts of the country. And that is precisely 
the situation we have in Nogales, AZ.
  You have this sewage coming through a community, creating an 
immediate health problem of having to treat that sewage or leaving 
residents exposed to untreated waste containing toxic chemicals. It 
seeps into the ground and you have it contaminating the aquifer and the 
ground water.
  Nogales, AZ, gets its drinking water from ground water. As a matter 
of fact, the community that I am from, Tucson, AZ, a community of 
almost 400,000 people, until recently got all of its water from ground 
water.
  Thanks to the creation of the Central Arizona Project, Tucson now 
does not rely solely on ground water. The President pro tempore was on 
the Appropriations Committee when the then President pro tempore and 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Carl Hayden, was able to 
usher through the authorization of the CAP. That bill created a system 
of transportation of water from the Colorado River to the central part 
of Arizona. Morris Udall and others of us have since then been able to 
transfer a small portion, about 100,000 acre feet, to Tucson for 
drinking water purposes.
  This is not for irrigation. This is so our community can continue to 
survive, because, with the overdraft of ground water--and even with the 
conservation efforts that have been put in, we are still overdrafting--
this is going to save that particular community and be a part of its 
water supply.
  Along our border--we do not have transported or imported water--we 
are faced with a catastrophe because we do not have safe drinking 
water.
  This amendment is extremely critical to protect the public health--
and that is what safe drinking water is all about--and the environment 
of my State of Arizona. And to all of the Southwest border States. It 
is critical, because it applies to all of them. It does not single out 
my State or the community I am going to talk about.
  Many of my colleagues who do not hail from border States may be 
unable to comprehend the extent of the pollution threat to the health 
and the welfare of thousands of residents in this country. It is 
difficult even for me--and I have visited these communities countless 
times--to see the sickness that is there. These are American citizens 
who work in our country, who serve in the military, who are 
participants in our full society and vote here. They are sick and they 
are sick because of unsafe drinking water and other environmental 
problems that affect them. And most of it, almost all of it, comes from 
our neighbors to the south--Mexico--who do not have the capacity to do 
anything about it.
  Now, I say that because they really do not have the capacity. But, in 
fairness to this administration in Mexico, there is an effort for the 
first time to actually appropriate some moneys for infrastructure along 
the border. President Salinas has succeeded in getting the Congress in 
Mexico to appropriate $400 million for a 4- or 5-year period of time to 
expand infrastructure along the whole border, from Brownsville, TX, to 
San Diego, CA. That is over 2,000 miles, and that is not that much 
money when you think about the area to be covered and if you have been 
down there and seen the problem.
  It is beyond dispute that the conditions in many border communities 
are deplorable and absolutely demand responsible action by this 
Government of the United States. Rectifying the dangerous pollution 
problems on our border should be, I think, one of our highest 
priorities. And I am sad to say, Mr. President, it is going to only get 
worse as NAFTA continues to expand and brings about trade that will 
grow at a very rapid rate.
  Rectifying the dangerous pollution problems on our border, I think, 
has to be a high priority. We cannot just ignore it or dwell on water 
systems all within the inner part of this country. It is unconscionable 
that residents of this country reside in the breeding grounds for 
disease that are found on the Southwest border part of our Nation.
  In my State, Nogales, AZ, is a community in desperate need of some 
Federal assistance to meet its water problem.
  I implore my colleagues to listen and give some concern about the 
citizens of this country, not just of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and 
California, but citizens of this country who need some special 
attention.
  This is not a pork barrel project. This is not an itemized issue for 
Nogales, AZ. It only permits the transfer of funds to the State 
Department and other appropriate Federal agencies or border States so 
that they can be used for wastewater treatment to remedy this threat to 
the environment and public health.
  Nogales is located immediately downhill and downstream from Nogales, 
Sonora, Mexico. Sonora is the northern state in Mexico that borders 
Arizona.
  As you can see on this map, this is Nogales, Sonora, a city. This is 
the State of Sonora.
  Nogales, Sonora, has a population--and it is difficult to determine--
between 250,000 and 300,000 people. Nogales, AZ, has a population of 
somewhere between 30,000 and 35,000, depending on the tourist season. A 
lot of people live there a part of the year, but it is a very small 
community.
  As you can see, the Santa Cruz River runs through the city. You see 
Morley Avenue that runs through the city and you see Nogales Wash. 
Nogales Wash is where the problem is. If the raw sewage was dumped into 
the river, it would also be a problem, because this wash and this river 
flow north from Mexico into the United States into the State of 
Arizona.
  Until recently, raw sewage from the Mexican community flowed 
unmitigated into the Nogales Wash, and even the streets of the city of 
Nogales, AZ.
  Since then, with the expansion of the Nogales International 
Wastewater Treatment Plant, there has been some effort to attempt to 
treat some of the sewage that comes through there.
  In February 1994, an article appearing in the Arizona Republic 
described the Nogales Wash as ``an open drainage ditch that carries 
industrial runoff and sewage right through downtown of both cities. 
Chlorine added round the clock since 1990 kills most of the fecal 
bacteria, but the water still contains a volatile mix of chemical 
solvents and petroleum products. In May 1991, theh was caught fire.''
  Why does this happen? Well, the tremendous growth on the Mexican side 
of the border, the increase of industrial capacity there, and the 
inability and inadequacy of any kind of a treatment plant causes this 
waste to be dumped into the wash on the Mexican side and, gravity being 
what it is, it flows into my beautiful State.
  Chlorine is added to the water right here near the border as this 
flows there this very day, and it is done around the clock since 1990 
in order to kill most of the fecal bacteria. But the water, after those 
bacteria are killed, still contains a very volatile mix of chemical 
solvents and petroleum products. In May of 1991, just a couple of years 
ago, it actually caught fire here after it had been treated by 
chlorine. As you know, chlorine is nonflammable, but it was the 
chemicals that were still in there that burned. These are horrible 
conditions for any State or city to have to tolerate.
  The existing treatment facility was designed to satisfy the treatment 
needs of both Nogales, AZ, and Nogales, Sonora. That was constructed 
recently, and it was supposed to be for a 20-year period of time. 
Unfortunately the growth in Nogales, Sonora--the Mexican side--has been 
so great that it is going to reach its peak sometime this year, in 
1994.
  For a number of reasons, including the population explosion in 
Nogales, Sonora, the plant is just incapable of coping with all of this 
particular waste that is coming to it through Mexico. It is at 75 
percent or more of its capacity today and will be, by next year, over 
capacity. It will be at 100 percent, and exceeding that.
  Thus, one of Arizona's fastest growing border communities is going to 
be penalized because of the problems beyond its control, across the 
border--something that is an international problem that has to be dealt 
with. This is particularly disturbing with the ongoing implementation 
of NAFTA, because this is only going to get worse in the sense that we 
are going to have more economic thrust toward the border States, and we 
are going to have a bigger problem than we do today.
  Right now there is a cancer cluster in Nogales, AZ. The specific 
cause is at this time is unknown, but there have been a lot of studies 
about it, and evidence points to chemical and heavy metal contaminants 
used in Mexican factories that flow down Nogales Wash from Mexico into 
Arizona. And the problem with safe drinking water, or unsafe drinking 
water in Arizona, is Mexico does not pretreat its industrial waste and 
the existing facility is unable to handle the amount of inflow that is 
coming in. Citizens of Nogales are facing a cancer epidemic.
  A study by the University of Arizona Cancer Center, which is a 
renowned cancer center at the university's medical school, found that 
Nogales has 4.8 times the expected average of myeloma cases, that is 
cancer; 1.6 times the average of leukemia cancer; and 4.5 times the 
average of lupus cases. The highest rate of lupus in the world is in my 
State, in this small community of Nogales, in the United States--
Nogales, AZ.
  If you live there, because of the environment and the lack of good 
water supply, your chance is 4.5 times greater of getting cancer, 
myeloma, or lupus. Researchers do not yet know what causes the lupus, 
but one of the causes, it is believed, is the toxic chemicals in the 
water in that community.
  As you can see from this very telling graph that I have here on my 
left, which ran in the Arizona Republic--State's largest newspaper--the 
residents of Nogales have dubbed one street in particular Cancer 
Street. That is what they call this street today. Carrillo Street, the 
name it was given when it was subdivided--now Cancer Street--borders 
the Nogales Wash where the water flows untreated, full of chemicals. It 
has at times actually, in times of heavy rain, overflowed into the 
subdivision when there has been some flooding.
  I believe this chart tells the tragic story about conditions in the 
United States. This is not a Third World country I am talking about. 
This is America. In the 18 houses on Cancer Street --these are the 
people who live here, these are real people, these are American 
citizens who are dying--there are 14 cancer cases--8 are surviving and 
6 are dead. This is one street, one small street in a quickly-growing 
border area.
  I have an article from the Arizona Republic entitled ``Warning Voices 
from Nogales,'' about Jim Teyechea. Jim Teyechea used to live on this 
street and he is a victim of a rare form of bone marrow cancer.
  Over the last couple years Mr. Teyechea helped form a group in 
Nogales, AZ, called LIFE--that acronym is Life Is For Everyone--to 
protect, inform and educate the country about toxic pollution problems 
near Cancer Street and the failure of that community to have good, safe 
drinking water.
  Mr. Teyechea has brought attention to this problem. Hopefully his 
efforts will help produce a solution.
  Mr. Teyechea will not benefit from any efforts that our Government 
might make if this amendment is accepted and put on this bill and 
implemented into law. Mr. Teyechea is not going to benefit from it--he 
recently died of his disease at the age of 44--but we have the 
opportunity now to reduce the chances for future ``Cancer Streets'' in 
Nogales and across the Southwest border.
  I could continue citing case after case, not only of cancer but of 
abnormally high numbers of children in this area being born with birth 
defects and life-threatening problems. They are horrible cases and 
horrifying statistics.
  Some may say yes, but there are other environmental problems--and 
there are. We have air problems in Nogales, AZ, and we have mines on 
the Mexican side that on occasion will blow harmful substances in this 
direction. Usually they blow northeast, but there is a mine east of the 
city that sometimes blows over the border. We have fugitive dust, we 
have burning garbage dumps, as is shown right here on the map. The 
Nogales, Sonora city dump was on fire just last week in Mexico 
releasing toxic smoke.
  This Senator called the Ambassador from Mexico to the United States, 
Mr. Montana. I thank him publicly for intervening to get that fire put 
out.
  Last year we had a fire there that was emitting a very toxic smoke 
into the United States right on top of these people. Those problems 
aside, these people do not have a reliable, safe water system. Part of 
it is because the sewage seeps into the ground, into the water system, 
and thereby contaminates it.
  I know the situation is no better in communities along the border all 
the way from California to Texas. There is no conclusive evidence yet, 
but all indications point to pollution of the border environment as the 
cause of these cancers, including contaminants in the water that people 
drink.
  The administration has recognized the conditions and has taken some 
action to alleviate them. I thank the Administrator of the EPA, and 
actually this administration, for paying attention to Americans' 
problems, real human problems such as those in Nogales.
  In fiscal year 1994 the VA/HUD appropriations subcommittee agreed to 
set aside $500 million for hardship communities, including those on the 
United States-Mexican border. Pending authorization of those 
projections, Nogales, AZ is listed as one of those projects for which 
the administration has requested funds.
  So I thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Gramm for their recognition 
of the need for action. In the 1994 appropriations bill that we are 
living with today, there is $500 million for hardship communities. If 
it was not for the leadership of the Senate appropriators, this money 
would not have been there, but it has not been spent. It is sitting 
there waiting to be spent. But the timeframe for availability of these 
funds is limited. Authorization is essential. That is what this 
amendment is all about. Nothing more. I hope that my colleagues will 
see fit to approve this amendment.
  Let me just summarize the amendment, Mr. President. This authorizes 
appropriations that are already there in fiscal year 1994 and for the 
future. In 1994, we are talking about part of a $500 million 
appropriation to build wastewater treatment facilities on the United 
States-Mexican border to deal with the problem of international 
pollution. It does not include the colonias on the United States-
Mexican border. I know the distinguished chairman is a strong supporter 
of that program and wants to keep that off this bill. But it would 
apply to other border communities whose environment and public health 
are endangered by pollution from Mexico.
  It authorizes the Administrator of the EPA to transfer funds to the 
Secretary of State for the Commissioner of the International Boundary 
Water Commission, or any other Federal agency, or make a grant to an 
appropriate entity designated by the President or a border State, for 
that matter, to carry out these projects if they are eligible, such as 
the construction of treatment works to protect public health and 
environment and water quality from international pollution from Mexico.
  It says the names of the border States. It says the term ``border 
State'' means the following States: Arizona, California, New Mexico, 
and Texas. It does not name Nogales, AZ, or Brownsville, TX, or 
Tijuana, Mexico, or San Diego. It just says these States.
  There is no guarantee that Nogales will get funding, but here we have 
the money, I know the distinguished chairman would like to keep 
amendments off this bill that he feels can better go on other 
legislation. But we are under a time constraint. I have worked with the 
chairman for some time, and he has been very helpful and sympathetic in 
trying to get some assistance here.
  But now I am confronted with the problem that I do not know where to 
go, but I come to my colleagues and ask them to put themselves in the 
shoes of the people who live on Cancer Street and to ask them if they 
would support an amendment that merely authorizes the EPA to transfer 
funds to the International Border Commission so that they can, if they 
elect to do so--and in this case, Nogales has been recommended by the 
administration in their budget--start the process of constructing 
adequate wastewater treatment facilities so that we could stop Cancer 
Street, so that the people of Arizona, particularly Nogales, would have 
an opportunity to live and drink as clean water as I do, living in the 
State of Maryland.
  I thank the Chair, and I hope the committee will accept this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article in the 
Arizona Republic, to which I referred, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Arizona Republic, Feb. 27, 1994]

                      Warning Voices From Nogales

                          (By Miriam Davidson)

       Nogales, AZ.--``This is not `Cancer Street.' ''
       Jim Teyechea leaned on his cane and looked up and down the 
     quiet Nogales side street where he lives.
       ``This is Carrillo Street,'' he insisted. ``This is where I 
     grew up.''
       Teyechea doesn't like the infamous nickname, but he admits 
     there's a lot of cancer on Carrillo Street, where he has 
     counted at least one case of cancer in each of half the 
     houses.
       Teyechea himself suffers from a rare form of bone-marrow 
     cancer that usually strikes the elderly. He's 44.
       In the four years since he was diagnosed, Teyechea has lost 
     his six-figure job as a produce broker, gotten divorced and 
     moved back home with his parents on Carrillo Street.
       He has undergone painful chemo-therapy, radiation 
     treatments and a bone-marrow transplant and now walks only 
     with difficulty.
       But he has survived far longer than doctors predicted he 
     would. He said this is because he has found his purpose.
       Teyechea believes contaminated air and water from across 
     the border have poisoned him, his neighbors and dozens of 
     others in Nogales. He has dedicated the rest of his life to 
     telling the world what's happening in this city of 20,000, 
     and to trying to stop the pollution coming from its sister 
     city of 200,000 in Mexico.
       Teyechea and the 40 or so other members of a group he has 
     formed called LIFE--Living is For Everyone--have spent 1\1/2\ 
     years collecting information, educating and protesting.
       It has worked. In December, after the University of Arizona 
     in Tucson found higher-than-expected rates of cancer and 
     other diseases in Nogales, Gov. Fife Symington and Republican 
     Sen. John McCain visited Teyechea.
       The politicians came to Carrillo Street with a promise of 
     at least $100,000 to study the situation. The Environmental 
     Protection Agency also pledged more than $400,000 for studies 
     of air and water.
       Disease and pollution rates in this city are alarming. The 
     UA's preliminary studies found leukemia occurring at almost 
     twice the expected rate, and lupus and multiple myeloma, the 
     cancer Teyechea has, occurring at nearly five times the 
     expected rates.
       If the incidence of lupus--an immune-system disorder that 
     strikes mostly women--is confirmed, UA scientists say it will 
     be the highest rate ever found.


                        everybody wants answers

       Tim Flood of the State Department of Health Services said 
     the higher-than-expected disease rates found by the UA in 
     Nogales have yet to be confirmed. He said his figures show 
     the death rate from cancer there is 23 percent, the same as 
     for the rest of Arizona.
       ``Everybody wants answers, but we need to know what it is 
     we're dealing with here,'' Flood said.
       LIFE members aren't satisfied with the state's response.
       ``They're just throwing money at us to make us shut up,'' 
     said Susan Ramirez, whose 8-year-old daughter has leukemia.
       ``We've been studied to death. We want action.''
       LIFE members suspect the UA studies will not pinpoint an 
     environmental cause for residents' illnesses and will only 
     serve to justify further inaction by government and industry.
       UA scientists conducting the cancer study concede it 
     probably won't find a definite link between diseases and 
     pollution in Nogales.
       But UA researcher Joel Meister emphasized, ``Environmental 
     cleanup should not depend on certain scientific outcomes. It 
     should have started a long time ago.''
       LIFE's crusade has put it at odds with many Nogales 
     businesspeople, who say they fear the group is giving the 
     city a bad name. Two industrial recruiters recently were 
     quoted in a local newspaper as warning that ``continued talk 
     of Nogales as a `cancer center' makes the rest of the nation 
     think residents here are mutations.''
       ``They're saying it's OK for me to die, but it's not OK to 
     hurt business in Nogales,'' Teycchea said.
       There is no question that pollution is causing major 
     problems in the border city. Nogales' air is among the worst 
     in the state, consistently worse than in Phoenix.
       Winds carry dust from unpaved roads, fumes from unregulated 
     vehicles and smoke from squatters' campfires in Mexico.


                           chemical cocktail

       Adding to the haze are sporadic fires in the Nogales, 
     Sonora, dump, which sits near the border. Every few weeks, 
     the dump catches fire and fills the air of Nogales, Ariz, 
     with the stench of burning plastic, rubber and garbage.
       The Santa Cruz County health director said the smoke makes 
     people's eyes and throats sting and has forced elementary 
     schools to cancel outdoor activities.
       At the same time, an open drainage ditch called the Nogales 
     Wash carries industrial runoff and sewage right through the 
     downtown of both cities. Chlorine added round the clock since 
     1990 kill most of the fecal bacteria, but the water still 
     contains a volatile mix of chemical solvents and petroleum 
     products. In May 1991, the wash caught fire.
       About 1\1/2\ weeks ago, the presence of potentially 
     explosive petroleum products in the Nogales, Ariz., sewer 
     system forced thousands of people to evacuate a large area on 
     both sides of the border.
       Susan Ramirez lived near the Nogales Wash and drank water 
     from a private well while pregnant. Ramirez's daughter, 
     Michelle, was diagnosed with leukemia 1\1/2\ years after she 
     was born.
       Michelle's illness is in remission, and Ramirez no longer 
     lives near the wash.
       Santa Cruz County Health Director Pat Zurick said that as 
     recently as 1990, 89 private wells along the wash were open. 
     Zurick believes that they mostly are used for household 
     chores and irrigation but that a few still may be used for 
     drinking water.
       Like many along the border, Teyechea blames U.S. factories 
     in Mexico for most of the pollution. He said that he knows 
     people who have worked in maquiladoras, as these factories 
     are called, and that the workers told him of industrial 
     solvents and other toxic wastes' being taken to the dump, 
     poured on the ground, burned or otherwise mishandled.


                         20 years of pollution

       Antonio Carbajal, president of the Sonora Maquiladora 
     Association, said that environmental inspections by Mexican 
     authorities have increased in recent years and that no 
     serious violations have been found.
       That may be, Teyechea said, but some maquiladoras have been 
     operating for more than 20 years.
       ``I shudder to think what's over there,'' he said.
       Carbajal, whose association represents more than 40 of the 
     largest maquiladoras in Nogales and has no authority to 
     enforce environmental standards, also pointed out that 
     Carrillo Street was built over a former Army base, which may 
     have dumped chemicals or other toxins.
       The UA's Meister said that's ``a possibility worth 
     investigating,'' but he and other researchers doubt the Army 
     base was responsible for the pollution problem.
       ``There are lots of former Army barracks in this country, 
     and we're looking for something unique about Nogales,'' UA 
     researcher Larry Clark said.
       Moreover, Teyechea's group has identified cancer and lupus 
     cases all over town, not just on Carrillo Street.
       Meanwhile, Nogales Sonora, officials say they're doing what 
     they can to stop pollution. Mayor Hector Mayer Soto said that 
     a new, $6 million dump is being built south of town and that 
     road-paving and tree-planting programs are under way. A 
     Nogales feedlot has quit burning pesticide-soaked manure and 
     is building a proper disposal pond, officials said.
       But Teyechea said poverty and corruption in Mexico prevent 
     meaningful enforcement of environmental laws.
       ``When I worked there as a produce broker, I never had a 
     problem I couldn't solve with a $100 bill,'' he said.
       As long as that continues, we're never going to solve 
     problems of cross-border pollution.''
       For now, some lifelong Nogales, Ariz., residents have moved 
     to the edge of town or to Rio Rico. Others, though 
     frightened, as staying put.
       ``I figure everywhere you go, it's something,'' said 
     Margaret Partida, whose 73-year-old husband has throat 
     cancer.
       The Partidas' healthy, 5-year-old granddaughter lives with 
     them, just a few doors down from Teyechea on Carrillo Street. 
     They have switched to bottled water but don't know what else 
     to do.
       Despite his anger, Jim Teyechea is at peace. He has had 
     time to fight for what he thinks is right, and he's proud of 
     the legacy he'll be leaving.
       ``The battle is not between living and dying,'' he said. 
     ``The battle is to five meaning to life.
       ``I'm speaking for a 12-year-old kid I just visited who's 
     got leukemia. I'm speaking for friends of mine who've died. 
     What I want to know is, after I'm gone, who will speak for 
     me?''

  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus].
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I worked often, and long hours and days, 
with the Senator from Arizona over this project and many others. The 
people of Arizona should be proud of the hard work of the Senator from 
Arizona. He has worked diligently and spent many opportunities to speak 
with me and others in the committee about this project, and others very 
important to Arizona.
  It is also clear, Mr. President, that border problems are very 
serious. The pollution along the border is unbelievable. I myself 
visited not Nogales, but in the summer 2 years ago, the colonias along 
El Paso and over in Tijuana, and Juarez, across the border from El 
Paso. When you see these colonias, you are just astounded how people 
live there. Colonias essentially are small communities where there are 
squatters; namely, people looking for jobs come to the border areas and 
they build up small communities. They just build tar-paper shacks, tens 
of thousands, all in these little sections. No running water, no 
drinking water, no sewage.
  The colonias I happened to visit did have electric power. That was 
it. It was dusty, hot; just squalid conditions. People were out there 
carrying water on their backs for communities to drink and to wash 
clothes, whatnot. The conditions are deplorable.
  In addition to that, Mr. President, because there is no sewer, the 
raw sewage flows down into the river, into the Rio Grande. Alongside 
the Rio Grande is another river called Agua Negres, black ditch, 
because it is all sewage. That is all it is.
  There are tremendous problems along the border. I assume the problems 
in Nogales are equally severe to those I saw in the El Paso area and 
the Juarez area.
  I must say, Mr. President, that even though we are all sympathetic to 
the problem, there are solutions. For example, the bill provides for 
about $600 million in State revolving loan funds under the Safe 
Drinking Water Program. And for 1994 and 1995, the authorization will 
be approximately $1.3 billion. Arizona's portion will be at least $17 
million. So the State of Arizona will be allocated $17 million under 
the drinking water State revolving loan fund to address whatever needs 
Arizona thinks most appropriate.
  I might add, in the next several weeks, the majority leader intends 
to bring up the Clean Water Act. Under the Clean Water Act, Arizona 
will receive at least as much in further State revolving loan funds and 
another $17 million at least for wastewater treatment plants, sewage 
plants, and so forth. So that totals about $34 million in combined safe 
drinking water and sewage wastewater treatment expenditures for 
decisions made by the State of Arizona. So there are dollars available 
to address whatever needs the State of Arizona thinks is most 
appropriate.
  The amendment before us deals with another matter. The amendment 
before us deals with a pot of money--$500 million--which has emerged 
over the last several years under the heading of ``needy communities''; 
that is, because the Congress was not considering the Clean Water Act 
last year, where this amendment more appropriately lies, because we 
were not dealing with and did not have before us the Clean Water Act 
and because there were needs in many communities, there was thought 
that $500 million, roughly, should be authorized for needy cities to 
meet urgent needs in our communities around the country.
  Even though there are dire needs along the border, other States also 
have their needs; other cities, other communities have their needs. 
They think they are needy, too.
  It was the thought of the committee that it probably made more sense 
to take these requests of needs under this $500 million general 
authorization and work with Senators in various States to try to find 
the best way to divide the money, to split the money, to split up the 
pot, because various communities around the country have legitimate 
complaints.
  There are a lot of needs, I might say, in trailer parks, for example, 
which do not have sewage systems. I can think of lots of needs around 
the country.
  I must say to the Senator from Arizona that many Senators have come 
to the committee saying they have needs in their communities. The 
committee has said to those Senators, although those requests are very 
legitimate, it makes much more sense to deal with all these requests on 
a more orderly basis; that is, when we take up the Clean Water Act in 
the next several weeks.
  So I strongly urge the Senator to not press his amendment on this 
bill but, rather, to press it when we work with other requests and 
other States and other cities to find the best way to allocate that as 
much as possible. At that time, it is the committee's intention, when 
the Clean Water Act comes up, to offer a managers' amendment which is 
the most equitable allocation with which we can come up in distributing 
that $500 million.
  I must also say, Mr. President, that the North American Free-Trade 
Agreement took a major step to address pollution problems along the 
border in setting up the environmental commission, the border 
environmental commission, as well as the North American Development 
Bank.
  Now, the funding for the North American Development Bank will be 
worked out, it is my understanding, with the Treasury Department, but 
the funding for the border environmental commission I hope is from a 
mixed source; it is not just general dollars that are to be 
appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency, under the rubric 
and control of the Environmental Protection Agency but also other 
sources.
  If we start down the road today on this bill allocating portions of 
the $500 million to one community as opposed to another, we run many 
risks. First, we run the risk of jeopardizing additional sources to 
address other needs communities have, particularly along the border, 
when we get to the Clean Water Act. We also jeopardize the needs in 
other communities, communities other than along the border, because 
this amendment essentially authorizes $500 million, all of the $500 
million, for four States. Its implication is that the dollars are to be 
redistributed to address pollution problems along the border, that is, 
along the Rio Grande.
  So for all those reasons, Mr. President, I say to my very good 
friend, the Senator from Arizona, that although there is a need--there 
is no doubt about it--the more appropriate time and place to deal with 
this issue, that is, how to allocate this $500 million, is when we take 
up the Clean Water Act in several weeks.
  Many other Senators have approached the committee. They want part of 
this $500 million. And the committee has said to those Senators, do not 
press your amendment now on this bill because this is not the 
appropriate time and place but, rather, press your case when we take up 
the Clean Water Act. They have all agreed to wait to take up their 
requests then, not now. And so when we add it altogether, I think the 
more fair and the more equitable, the more just approach to this 
problem is to take up these similar requests at the time we take up 
clean water, not to individually press it on a bill which really is a 
safe drinking water bill; it is not a clean water bill, which is the 
bill that addresses pollution.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. 
Chafee].
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wish to join with the floor manager of 
the bill, the chairman of our committee, in his views on this 
amendment.
  The committee, as perhaps has been pointed out, the Environment 
Committee, has reported out a bill to reauthorize the Clean Water Act. 
So that is done. That is out of the committee. We expect it to be up 
before the Senate in several weeks. It seems to me the Clean Water Act, 
since it is the program that deals with sewage treatment, is where the 
Senator's amendment should be rather than the Safe Drinking Water Act 
which is before us now.
  You also have the added problem the Senator from Montana just pointed 
out. There are a whole group of Senators who want to tap into the $500 
million that has been appropriated, and if we were to take up the 
Senator's amendment today, which provides for 100 percent financing for 
this facility, obviously it would bring all the others over here--and 
some who had not heard about it--who would feel distressed because they 
have agreed to hold back waiting for the Clean Water Act to come 
through here. I really think that is the proper place to have this 
amendment. And also obviously what is going to happen is we are going 
to have to get together, those who have requests or demands upon that 
half a billion dollars, whether it is Tijuana or the California city 
opposite Tijuana, wherever it be, Boston Harbor. All of this started as 
a coastal bill.
  So I think what we have to do is get those folks together and somehow 
divide it up in a fair way based upon the priority or the emergency 
presented.
  I listened to the Senator's presentation of what is taking place in 
Nogales, and I think he has a very strong case. But in all fairness I 
think the others should have an opportunity to present their case 
likewise.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CHAFEE. I would reluctantly ask that the Senator not press his 
amendment.
  Yes. Sure.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. I appreciate 
the history of the Clean Water Act. The reality, if you look at this 
amendment, Mr. President, I say to Senator Chafee, you will see that 
this amendment only authorizes the EPA to make a transfer. It does not 
say they transfer $500 million. It does not say they transfer $50 
million. It just says they may transfer, they are authorized to 
transfer some money.
  So that is a decision which the EPA is going to make. What are they 
going to make it on? They are going to make it, hopefully, for this 
Senator and these people who live on Cancer Street, on this being a 
hardship, a public health hazard. If they do not, there is nothing I 
can do about it. I am not here suggesting that we write into the law 
that we make an authorization to Nogales, AZ, or to the International 
Boundary and Water Commission for Nogales, AZ.
  The argument, Mr. President, is that other Senators have concerns 
here. Sure, they do. But that is what this body is all about. My people 
in Arizona and maybe other places, maybe in the Boston area, have bad 
drinking water, and are exposed to contaminated water and it is likely 
that this contamination has caused the cancer rate to be so high in 
Nogales, Az.
  So I am confronted with, well, put it off until the Clean Water Act 
comes. Yes, that has passed the committee, and I compliment the ranking 
member, Mr. Chafee, and Mr. Baucus, from Montana; they have that bill 
out here. But it is not in the Chamber. We know how this place works. 
It took weeks and weeks to get this bill in the Chamber. So my plea to 
them is take this amendment, and if the Clean Water Act comes up and we 
do pass it, then you can drop this amendment because it could be on 
that bill. But we are not deciding here how to divvy up $500 million. 
That money has been appropriated; it is sitting there; it is not being 
used. And here the EPA could use it if they were able.
  So, Mr. President, I would like to proceed with this amendment. I 
implore my colleagues. Mr. President, I would ask for the yeas and nays 
on the amendment.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is the demand sustained?
  The demand is not sustained.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, then I will wait until I can get enough 
Members to get a rollcall vote on it because I am confronted, as I 
said, with no alternative. I do not know where to go in order to get 
some relief. And as I have indicated, I appreciate the concern that the 
Senator from Rhode Island has pointed out that we have another bill 
coming along on which we can work. But I ask them what would they do if 
in their State they had 4\1/2\ or 5 times the cancer rate attributed to 
poor drinking water. Would they not ask, is it not reasonable to ask 
that the EPA may use funds that are already appropriated and set aside, 
that they may use them? Not that they must but that they may use them 
for this hardship community? I cannot go home to Arizona and have a 
water quality bill go through here and not make an attempt to get some 
relief.
  If I were asking here for specific dollars for Nogales, AZ, then I 
could agree--and I would have to probably reluctantly because I would 
be pushing for the appropriations for the money--but I could agree with 
the Senators from Rhode Island or Montana who say we cannot divvy up 
because everybody has some priority. But that is why we created the 
EPA--to assess and determine. Maybe this priority will fall when it is 
compared against where there are other problems with ground water. But 
so far, it is in the budget. And here is an opportunity to take action.
  I just do not understand why we have to let this tragedy continue out 
of the sake that we do not want anybody else to offer amendments. To me 
that is just not a logical way to approach legislation. If you think I 
have a good case, if you think the people are dying in Arizona because 
of bad drinking water, and there is a fund of money there, then how can 
you oppose giving authorization for the EPA to consider--not mandating 
that they spend the money in Nogales, but that they ``may''--that they 
are authorized to use that money that is already there for hardship 
communities?
  So that is all I am asking for. I do not think that is unreasonable.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Texas 
[Mrs. Hutchison], and the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], be added 
as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Rhode Island yield 
for that purpose?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. I do.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Here is the problem. There is no question but what the 
case the Senator from Arizona presented in connection with Nogales is 
an appealing one and of deep concern. But we do not know what the cases 
are from the other States. We have here an amendment for water 
infrastructure from Senator Grassley, from Senator Coverdell, from 
Senator Hatfield, from Senator Domenici, from Senators Stevens and 
Murkowski, from Senator Pressler, from Senators Bennett and Hatch, and 
others; and another, Senator Chafee, actually.
  So it seems to me what we have to do is put these in some kind of 
priority. I mean the case that the Senator from Arizona made is an 
appealing one. But is that of greater importance for this limited 
amount of money that the Appropriations Committee has appropriated last 
year, dependent upon the authorization, than these others? I think in 
fairness to these others who have held back, we have to in some fashion 
weigh them. It may well be that the Senator from Arizona will have the 
lead role. But we do not know.
  So, as I understand what the Senator from Arizona is suggesting, that 
while we have not actually appropriated nor actually required that the 
appropriations take place, we have passed it over to the EPA. But my 
experience around here is that most of the Senators do not want to have 
these decisions to remain in the EPA. What is the EPA going to have 
before it? If this is all we pass today in connection with this bill 
and the others hold off, then that is all EPA has before it.
  I think it is better, in fairness to the others who may have powerful 
cases and may not, to at least have a chance to hear them out and do it 
in an orderly fashion as we try to do when we come up with the Clean 
Water Act.
  So for those reasons I join with the manager of the bill, and oppose 
the amendment by the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham].
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I join with the chairman and the ranking 
member of the committee in opposing this amendment, as well-intended as 
it is.
  I will make three comments about the amendment itself. First, the 
amendment is not specifically targeted to the circumstance in Nogales, 
AZ, but rather relates to expenditures along the United States-Mexican 
border, wherever they may occur. It transfers funds from the EPA to the 
State Department, and the State Department in turn to the Commission, 
the International Boundary and Water Commission, which is a successor 
agency to the International Boundary and Water Commission, in order to 
implement whatever eligible projects that Commission feels is 
appropriate.
  Second, this calls for full funding of these projects; that is, it is 
100 percent to be paid from this source of funds. Most of our projects 
require some level of contribution by the communities or by the State 
in which the project is located.
  Third, the funding is to be for treatment works under the definition 
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and as the Chair of the 
committee indicated earlier, that is the legislation that is 
encompassed in the Clean Water Act, not the legislation that is before 
us today which is the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  Beyond those specific comments, I would point out that the 
Environmental Protection Agency has $600 million of funds which have 
already been appropriated by the committee of our Presiding Officer to 
assist States in providing safe drinking water. Essentially what the 
Senator from Arizona has indicated is a very serious problem of unsafe 
drinking water.
  Arizona would receive an estimated, approximately, $8 million of that 
$600 million nationally to spend in correcting drinking water problems 
within that State. So there already are appropriated funds, available 
with the not insignificant amount to go to the State of Arizona to meet 
its specific needs.
  Mr. President, both in the Clean Water Act and in the Safe Drinking 
Water Act, there has been an effort on the part of the committee to 
establish an orderly process of arriving at priorities. It is a very 
difficult situation. We have an estimated $130 to $140 billion of needs 
in the area of responsibility of the Clean Water Act itself with 
approximately $2 to $2.5 billion of Federal funds being authorized in 
this legislation to meet that very significant need.
  If the Clean Water Act passes, that authorization will grow over the 
next few years up to a total of $5 billion; a significant fund but 
still a minor percentage of the estimated national need.
  I believe, given the fact that we have such a small Federal fund to 
meet such a massive national responsibility, that it is particularly 
important that we look at our needs on a prioritized basis. We have 
taken some steps to do that, moving toward an allocation formula, the 
principal focus of which is on documented, unmet needs to meet both 
Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act responsibility, and 
allocating funds against those needs.
  I was pleased that yesterday the managers of the bill accepted an 
amendment which I had offered which will place that needs assessment on 
a 2-year cycle; that is, every 2 years a State's need for safe drinking 
water and for waste water treatment will be analyzed, and that analysis 
of unmet needs will become the principal factor in the allocation of 
funds among the 50 States and territories which benefit by that 
program. So I think we are on a course that the Senate can support as 
rational and orderly, attempting to arrive at priorities.
  I have keen admiration for the Senator from Arizona. There are few 
people who serve in this body with more respect and with more vigor the 
advocacy of their needs for their citizens. I would say in this case I 
would ask for his understanding of the need to place this serious issue 
in the context of a whole nationwide set of similar needs, and that it 
is the commitment of the committee, with the support of the Presiding 
Officer and the members of the Appropriations Committee, to be able to 
provide a sufficient amount of Federal assistance as we can within our 
total needs as a nation to meet these important drinking water health 
environmental concerns.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. DeCONCINI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona [Mr. DeConcini] 
is recognized.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, it is my intention to go ahead and have 
a rollcall. I think the debate has been healthy. I am sorry I have not 
been able to convince the Senator from Florida how good this is for 
border States, who are inundated with immigrants, with so many people 
flooding into the State. I think he understands that.
  In this case, I have raw sewage flowing into my State, and it is 
causing death. It is my intention to ask for a rollcall vote, but I do 
not have the people here. The Senator from Rhode Island said he would 
support a rollcall vote. In that case, I will have to wait until we get 
some more people here.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The absence of a quorum having been 
suggested, the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________