[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. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, what is the pending order of business?


                           amendment no. 1711

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment No. 1711, 
offered by the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by Senator DeConcini to help protect public health and the 
environment along our Nation's border with Mexico. Specifically, the 
amendment would authorize the Environmental Protection Agency to make 
grants for high priority wastewater treatment facilities along the 
border which addresses international pollution problems.
  My colleagues are well aware of the problems facing border 
communities in the Southwest. In Arizona, we have had several problems 
with transboundary water pollution which has resulted in the 
contamination of drinking water wells and surface water. Public health 
emergencies have been declared in Nogales because of raw sewage flowing 
into the streams from Mexico. Mr. President, during these episodes 
children have been found playing in stream beds contaminated by this 
waste. This must stop. Period.
  As Senator DeConcini pointed out, studies are underway to determine 
the cause of a cancer cluster afflicting Nogales. Preliminary studies 
have shown that between 1986 and 1992, 290 of the 600 people that died 
in that area had some form of cancer. This is more than double the 
national cancer rate.
  Recently, a petroleum spill in the sewer system forced the city to 
declare a state of emergency and evacuate residents because of concern 
that fumes from the spill may explode. Many of my colleagues may 
remember the incident in Guadalajara, Mexico where such a spill 
resulted in a horrific explosion.
  I have said time and time again the United States and Mexico have a 
responsibility to protect public health and the environment of the 
border region. We have an obligation to provide the proper 
infrastructure to meet that goal.
  Last year, the President requested and Congress provided $500 million 
to support the construction of much needed water infrastructure for 
hardship communities including areas along the United States-Mexico 
border. While I was pleased that Congress recognized its responsibility 
to help these communities, my optimism was tempered by the fact that no 
authorization was given to the Environmental Protection Agency to 
actually spend this money.
  The conferees intended that expenditure of this money would be 
authorized at some later point. Well, that was October of last year and 
since then no action has been taken. As a result, we are faced with a 
persistent and growing threat to public health and the environment from 
untreated sewage in areas along the border. Senator DeConcini's 
amendment is needed because it is clear that this problem demands our 
immediate attention.

  The amendment is quite simple. It would authorize the Environmental 
Protection Agency to transfer funds to the International Boundary and 
Water Commission [IBWC] and other appropriate entities to resolve 
international wastewater problems. EPA would only use these funds 
either directly or thorough the IBWC to resolve high priority 
international problems for hardship communities. The IBWC is currently 
authorized by law to deal with this very problem. The President's 
fiscal year 1994 budget request identified several of these water 
projects which rate a high priority.
  One of these communities is in Nogales, AZ. Nogales is located on the 
border directly across from her sister city Nogales, Sonora, Mexico. 
The International Boundary and Water Commission owns and operates a 
wastewater treatment facility on the border which treats surface water 
flowing from Mexico into the United States.
  As a result of growth primarily on the Mexican side of the border, 
the plant is operating at nearly 80 percent of its capacity. Under 
Arizona law, waste treatment facilities are required to begin planning 
for expansion once they reach 70 percent of their capacity.
  Adding to the problems of the treatment plant in Nogales is a new 
program in Mexico to expand sewer collection systems. Mexican officials 
are rightfully moving to ensure the proper disposal of this waste. 
Unfortunately, the consequence of this is added pressure on the 
existing wastewater treatment facility. Upgrading the facility is 
crucial.
  According to officials at the International Boundary Water 
Commission, waste from Mexico and the city of Nogales will exceed the 
plant's capacity within 3 to 5 years. If the money to upgrade the 
facility was available today and everything went according to schedule, 
it would take 4 years to complete the upgrade. Clearly, there is a 
compelling need to authorize the use of these funds immediately to meet 
our obligations to citizens in Nogales and throughout the border 
region.
  Madam President, I realize that some of my colleagues may argue that 
it would be more appropriate to address this issue when the Senate 
takes up the Clean Water Act reauthorization.
  Unfortunately, the time for waiting has expired, the citizens of 
Nogales and other border communities have been waiting and waiting and 
waiting. They don't know nor do they care much about the niceties and 
formalities of Congressional procedure. They do know and care about 
their children who become sick when wells are contaminated with sewage. 
They do know and care about growth and prosperity of their city which 
will be summarily halted if the plant is not upgraded. They do know and 
care about their rivers and streams which become inundated with sewage 
when the current sewage system fails. They need and deserve our help.
  No member in this chamber can tell the people of Nogales with 
absolute certainty that the Clean Water Act will be brought to the 
Senate floor and will pass this year. Despite the best efforts of the 
chairman and ranking member, we have no guarantee that the Clean Water 
Act will pass this year. We simply cannot tell these people to continue 
to wait and to hope for the best.
  My colleagues may recall that it was 3 years ago when the Arizona 
delegation first began to seek funding to upgrade this wastewater 
treatment facility.
  Each year, the citizens of Nogales have been denied. Two years ago a 
conference committee stripped provisions that would have allowed the 
plant upgrade--a victim of one member who opposed the North American 
Free-Trade Agreement.
  During debate on NAFTA there was much discussion about the obligation 
of both Mexico and the United States to protect public health and the 
environment along the border. Many people including members of this 
body were quite strident in their criticism of Mexico's performance in 
that regard. Mexico is making progress. The failure to do our part in 
the cause would be grossly negligent and hypocritical.
  In good conscience, we cannot tell the people of Nogales and the 
other border communities that face similar international problems to 
wait any more. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
several media accounts of the sewage treatment problems and needs that 
this amendment would address. I urge my colleagues to adopt this 
amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Nogales International, Mar. 4, 1994]

                      Plant Expansion Still Needed

                         (By Jennifer Markley)

       Plans to develop the recently-expanded Nogales 
     International Wastewater Treatment Plant, now operating at 
     75-percent capacity, remain under consideration, said 
     officials this week.
       ``The need is still the same,'' said Lino Vega, supervisor 
     of the plant.
       Rene Valenzuela, public affairs officer for International 
     Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), said that development 
     plans for the treatment facility await the outcome of 
     preliminary plans under way for collecting renegade flows 
     from Mexico to the treatment plant.
       The contract for the preliminary plans has not been 
     assigned to an architectural engineering firm yet, but may be 
     ready next week, said Valenzuela.
       At issue, said Vega, is an old line that is ``coming to 
     capacity,'' in transporting wastewater flow from Mexico to 
     the Nogales plant.
       Valenzuela said that once results of the study are 
     available, such as the location and size of a new line, the 
     IBWC can coordinate with the Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA) for the design and cost of the project before going to 
     Congress for funding.
       Money is available for the study of a new line, but ``we're 
     subject to Congress'' for funding, said Valenzuela.
       Paul Valdez, an environmental engineer with the EPA's U.S.-
     Mexican border team, said there is no specific amount of 
     money set aside for the Nogales plant.
       The EPA, however, recently drafted legislation authorizing 
     use of funds in border areas, Valdez said.
       But, the funds must be applied for, he added.
       The IBWC can apply for funding from ``a big pot of $500 
     million set aside for hardship communities'' across the 
     country by the EPA, and from the Border Environmental 
     Cooperation Committee, he said.
       Valenzuela said he is not aware of any applications 
     submitted by the IBWC.
       Currently, the Nogales plant treats about 13 million 
     gallons per day (mgd), but can expand to 17.2 mgd, said Vega.
       ``Nonetheless, once you get to 75 percent, you're supposed 
     to notify EPA because shortly thereafter you're going to come 
     to capacity,'' he said.
       Federal law requires treatment-facility officials to notify 
     the EPA with expansion plans when a sewage plant operates at 
     75-percent capacity, which the Nogales plant did in 1992, 
     said Vega.
       There are predictions, he said, that within the next year 
     the plant could reach its capacity of 17.2 mgd, if not 
     because of an increased amount of sewage, then because of 
     rainwater.
       ``Every time it rains we go up to 15, almost 17, (and ) up 
     to 24 (mgd) the other day,'' he said.
       No matter what the amount of wastewater to rainwater, 
     however, the EPA takes one reading from the meter, said Vega.
       He said eight additional aerators are needed to mix water 
     and suspend solids at 17.2 mgd.
       Though a meeting has not been set to discuss plans for the 
     wastewater facility, four options are under consideration, 
     said Vega.
       A plant could be built in Mexico for the southern flow of 
     wastewater, Nogales could pay Mexico to take over and run its 
     plant, the IBWC could buy and run the Nogales plant, or 
     Mexico could buy the Nogales plant and money from that 
     purchase could go towards building a separate plant for the 
     city, said Vega.
       He said he thinks the option of a buy-out for the 
     construction of a new plant for the city will be decided 
     upon.
       ``We need to for sure get ready for that point'' when 
     capacity is reached, said Vega.
                                  ____


            [From the Nogales International, April 29, 1994]

   United States Should Buy Wastewater Plant; City Can Build Another

                         (By Kathy Vandervoet)

       There is a possible answer to the dilemma of wastewater 
     treatment.
       ``We have proposed what we call the `All America solution' 
     '' said Lino Vega, superintendent of the Nogales 
     International Wastewater Treatment Plant.
       Nogales would sell its 45 percent share in the existing 
     wastewater treatment plant to the International Boundary and 
     Water Commission.
       That agency is already the copermit holder with the city to 
     operate the facility.
       In return, the IBWC would build a separate wastewater 
     treatment plant exclusively for Nogales, Arizona.
       Funding would have to be approved by Congress.
       The new international trunkline would feed sewage from 
     Mexico into the existing wastewater treatment plant, and the 
     existing trunkline would feed the city's new treatment plant, 
     Vega said.
       Most Nogales residents are hooked up to the sewer line, but 
     some residential areas are not, such as Beatus Estates, 
     northwest of downtown.
       Residents there should be connected to the sewer, health 
     officials have said, because individual septic systems are 
     failing at many homes.
       Meadow Hills would also benefit from being hooked to the 
     sewer main.
       As well, a vacant area north of Meadow Hills, where two 
     public schools are to be built, is also expected to be 
     developed with homes, and hundreds of acres should be 
     connected to sewer lines.
                                  ____


            [From the Nogales International, April 29, 1994]

                  Opinion--Intolerable Sewage Problems

       Most people would prefer to forget about sewage treatment 
     and disposal, but the economic growth of Nogales and better 
     lives for all residents hinges on immediate action.
       Nogales must have a second wastewater treatment plant, or 
     see that the current facility is greatly expanded, says Lino 
     Vega, superintendent of the facility.
       Sewage from Mexico flows downhill from Nogales, Sonora. For 
     our own health and safety from communicable diseases, the 
     wastes are treated in Nogales, Ariz. But the local plant is 
     at more than 75 percent of capacity. It took 12 years for the 
     last expansion and Nogales doesn't have a safety net of 
     another 12 years.
       Meanwhile, Vega says, ``the capacity we own and we are 
     paying for is being usurped by the rapid increase in sewage 
     flow from Mexico.''
       Funding for this international problem must be approved by 
     Congress and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has to 
     lobby senators and representatives so that Nogales is not 
     ignored.
       The promised economic growth that NAFTA will bring won't 
     make a wrinkle in Nogales if all construction is halted due 
     to inadequate sewage facilities.
       Vega has told the EPA that ``this is an intolerable 
     situation.'' Now let's see if Administrator Carol Browner 
     responds.
                                  ____


                    [From the Nogales International]

        Sewage Plant Must Expand so Economic Growth Can Continue

                         (By Kathy Vandervoet)

       If Nogales doesn't get help soon from the U.S. 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the city's 
     wastewater treatment plant new construction could come to a 
     screeching halt.
       Severe pollution of the Santa Cruz River is also a 
     possibility. Lino Vega, superintendent of the Nogales 
     International Wastewater Treatment Plant, prepared a detailed 
     explanation for the EPA's deputy director, Robert Sussman, 
     when he visited here last week.
       ``The capacity we own and are paying for is being usurped 
     by the rapid increase in sewage flow from Mexico,'' Vega 
     said.
       The treatment plant is receiving more than 75 percent of 
     its total capacity, and planning for expansion or a second 
     sewage collection location is overdue.
       The existing main sewer line from Nogales, Sonora, which 
     runs underground in Nogales, Arizona is currently at 
     capacity, Vega said.
       Vega explained that there are two reasons for the sewage 
     treatment emergency:
       Rapid population growth in Nogales, Sonora, estimated at 
     four percent a year.
       Improvements to the water and sewer systems in Nogales, 
     Sonora.
       Vega said that Mexico is pursing very aggressively 
     construction of new sewer lines and the increase of water 
     supplies for Nogales, Sonora.
       ``It is our understanding that when a wastewater treatment 
     plant reaches 100 percent of capacity, EPA will probably not 
     allow new sewage connections in our city.
       ``That would be an enormous economic hardship on our city--
     even though our people are paying for excess capacity in this 
     treatment plant for our own growth,'' Vega said.
       Current water use in Nogales, Sonora, is around 50 gallons 
     per person per day, as compared to 250 gallons per person per 
     day in Nogales, Arizona, Vega said.
       ``As the population of Nogales, Sonora, increases, their 
     water supplies improve and sewer collection systems coverage 
     improves, we are going to get more wastewater to treat.
       ``We experienced a substantial increase in sewage flows 
     when the first Los Alisos (Mexico) project went on line,'' 
     Vega said.
       Even so, there is an estimated one to two million gallons 
     per day of raw sewage flowing down the Nogales Wash. If that 
     sewage is put into the wastewater treatment plant, as is 
     currently proposed, the city quickly gets closer to the 
     plant's capacity, he said.
       ``It took 12 years for the expansion of the treatment 
     plant'' that was completed 18 months ago. We cannot wait 12 
     years to deal with the problems we face,'' Vega said.
       The EPA's Sussman said during a public forum on April 21 
     that his agency is pressing for funds.
       The EPA has requested $5 million from Congress this year 
     and $13 million in 1995 to ease Nogales sewage problems.
       Vega said, ``Our problem is very simple and very 
     important--if sewage flows from Mexico exceed the capacity of 
     the existing wastewater treatment plant, we are going to have 
     an increase in raw sewage flowing down the Nogales Wash and 
     into the Santa Cruz River, polluting the groundwater supplies 
     for the entire Santa Cruz River Valley.
       This is an intolerable situation for us,'' Vega concluded.
                                  ____


                           [From the Citizen]

                      Tests Confirm Gas in Sewage

                         (By Anne T. Denogean)

       Preliminary test results confirm that ``dangerously high 
     levels of petroleum-based products, primarily diesel and 
     gasoline,'' were found Thursday at the Nogales Sewage 
     Treatment Plant.
       In making that announcement last night, Nogales Fire Chief 
     Jose de la Ossa added; ``It is anticipated that results from 
     samples drawn from the sewer line at the Sonora border will 
     reveal much higher concentrations of these products.''
       Final tests results are expected Tuesday, the fire chief 
     said. Preliminary results have been forwarded to appropriate 
     authorities, including the International Boundary Water 
     Commission, he said.
       The hazardous material that leaked into a Nogales-area 
     sewer line Thursday forced evacuation of more than 4,000 
     residents on both sides of the border. They were allowed to 
     return to their homes and businesses Thursday night after 
     subsequent test readings were normal.
       Continual monitoring of the sewer lines since Thursday 
     night has found no unusual levels of petroleum-based products 
     of any kind, de la Ossa said.
       A 7\1/2\-mile-long, 300-foot-wide strip that covered 
     territory on both sides of the border had been evacuated 
     after workers from the sewage plant that treats waste water 
     flowing north from Nogales, Son., detected very high levels 
     of a gas, believed to be a petroleum by-product.
       The source of the contamination remains a mystery.
       U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., yesterday called on Mexican 
     President Carlos Salinas de Gortari ``to investigate the 
     source of repeated pollution of the border area.''
       ``The Mexican government is still investigating with all 
     the different agencies on the Mexican side to determine what 
     the source of it is,'' said Carlos Pena, Nogales project 
     manager for the U.S. section of the International Boundary 
     and Water Commission.
       Nogales Police Chief Luis Alday said he had spoken to his 
     counterpart in Nogales, Son., and was told that Mexican 
     authorities have some leads.
       Jerry Slusser, an emergency response specialist with the 
     Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, said the Arizona 
     Attorney General's Environmental Crime Unit is investigating 
     as well.
       Pena said Thursday's problem did not result in any 
     contaminated water being released into the Santa Cruz River.
       The main sewer line leads to the sewage treatment plant, 
     which then discharges clean effluent into the river.
       If the contamination is a petroleum by-product, it will 
     evaporate or dissipate before the water leaves the plant, 
     Pena said.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I move to table the amendment and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                       vote on amendment no. 1711

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to the 
motion to table amendment numbered 1711. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley-
Braun] is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is 
absent because of illness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 23, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 114 Leg.]

                                YEAS--75

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Danforth
     Daschle
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--23

     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Campbell
     D'Amato
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Gramm
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hutchison
     Johnston
     Kerrey
     Lautenberg
     McCain
     Reid
     Riegle
     Simon

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Moseley-Braun
     Shelby
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1711) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Wellstone, I ask 
unanimous consent that David Corvette, a fellow on the staff, be 
permitted the privilege of the floor during the pendency of S. 2019 and 
for all rollcall votes, and I make the same request with respect to 
Jack Fowle, on Senator Moynihan's staff.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to proceed as in morning business for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COHEN. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Cohen pertaining to the introduction of 
legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, we are starting to process amendments. 
That is good. We are starting to get a little bit of roll here. We 
voted on the amendment of the Senator from Arizona. I understand that 
other Senators are now ready to come to the floor and offer amendments.
  I, again, urge Senators to come to the floor. There is time now 
within which to consider amendments. I remind Senators under the 
agreement, we are on the safe drinking water bill today and also 
tomorrow. Tomorrow there will be a joint meeting of Congress. The 
Senate will recess temporarily for that joint meeting in order to hear 
the address of the Prime Minister of India. There may be other times 
tomorrow during which the Senate will be unable to conduct business, 
which is to say Senators should not assume they will easily be able to 
bring up their amendments and have them disposed of tomorrow.
  All amendments must be brought up and offered prior to the close of 
business tomorrow under the agreement. Staff is over here. If Senators 
want to send their staff over to work out amendments that, too, will be 
very appropriate. If the Senators themselves want to come over and 
debate their amendments, I strongly urge them to do so now.
  Madam President, I now see the Senator from New Hampshire on the 
floor. It is my hope that he has an amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. I do.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                           Amendment No. 1712

(Purpose: To prohibit the assessment or collection of penalties against 
    a community if the noncompliance of the community with the Safe 
      Drinking Water Act results from an unfunded Federal mandate)

  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk. Frankly, 
I have not had an opportunity to send this to the chairman, so I also 
ask that a copy be given to the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1712.

  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 74, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(8) Waiver of penalties that result from unfunded federal 
     mandates.--
       ``(A) Definitions.--As used in this paragraph:
       ``(i) Funds.--The term `funds' means amounts provided by 
     the Federal Government to a political subdivision, including 
     amounts that must be repaid by the subdivision.
       (ii) Unfunded federal mandate.--The term ``unfunded Federal 
     mandate' means a requirement that a political subdivision 
     undertake a specific activity, or provide a service, in 
     accordance with this title during a period, to the extent 
     that the Federal Government does not provide, directly or 
     indirectly, funds that are necessary to undertake the 
     activity or provide the service during the period.
       (B) Waiver of penalties.--The Administrator may not 
     commence a penalty assessment proceeding under this 
     subsection against a political subdivision and any pending 
     penalty or penalty assessment or collection proceeding under 
     this subsection against a political subdivision shall be 
     waived, if the noncompliance of the subdivision that is the 
     subject of the penalty or proceeding results from an unfunded 
     Federal mandate.

  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, last week, the Senate approved the 
conference report accompanying the budget resolution. That resolution 
contained a sense-of-the-Congress provision on unfunded mandates.
  I had offered this provision when the Budget Committee was marking up 
the resolution on the budget. All 21 members of the committee voted for 
it and, of course, the budget resolution, adopted by this House and the 
other body has been approved. The provisions of that section of the 
budget resolution which we just adopted state:

       The Federal Government should not shift the costs of 
     administering Federal programs to the States and local 
     governments.

  I really do not think anything could be clearer as a statement of 
intent. It is a very appropriate statement of intent because, as we 
have seen all too often, it has become the nature of this Government--
the Federal Government--to pass laws which are well-intentioned and 
well-meaning but to pass the cost of those laws on to the local 
governments and the States.
  The practical effect of that is that we, as a Congress, can take 
credit for the well-intentioned purpose of the law, but we do not 
suffer the pain of having to raise the revenue to pay for it. Rather, 
that burden falls on the local communities and the States.
  Another practical effect of this is that the local communities and 
the States find that their tax base is skewed by the activities of the 
Federal Government in a manner that makes it impossible for the local 
communities and the States to spend their locally raised revenues on 
the priorities which they consider to be most important. Rather, they 
must spend their local revenues on the priorities that are set forth by 
the Federal Government.
  For example, a community may wish to hire more police officers or 
spend more on training its teachers or paying its teachers. They may 
wish to spend more on fire, or may wish to spend more on its local park 
system. But because of the pressure put on the local communities to 
comply with a variety of Federal laws which are unfunded but which 
mandate them to undertake action, it finds that a large percentage of 
its tax base has to be allocated for the purposes of paying the Federal 
activity, which has been directed on it, rather than the local 
decisions which may be their first priority.
  And so this language was put in the budget resolution because I think 
most Senators understand this, most House Members understand this, 
frustration that is growing in our country amongst local and State 
representatives and leaders with the Federal Government telling the 
local communities to do something but not being willing to pay for it.
  The bill that is before us represents a legitimate and genuine effort 
by the chairman of the committee and the ranking Republican on the 
committee to try to address this problem. They have been, I believe, 
very sensitive to the fact that unfunded mandates are the scourge of 
the towns and city governments throughout this country. But as hard as 
they have tried, unfortunately, there remains in this bill a fair 
amount--a considerable amount in fact --of unfunded mandate language 
and implications.
  The EPA has estimated that the capital expenditures needed to meet 
the requirements of this safe drinking water bill are approximately 
$8.6 billion. That is a huge amount of money. That is the capital side. 
You must couple with that expenditure number the fact that there is a 
significant cost in compliance that is put on the local communities as 
a result of this bill.
  My language is really quite simple. I do not go the full distance and 
say if the Federal Government does not pay for it, the towns and cities 
do not have to do it, although there are some strong and effective 
pieces of legislation that are cosponsored by a large number of 
Senators in this body--in fact, a majority of the Senators in this body 
have cosponsored language to other bills --which would accomplish that 
and which, if it were in law today, would directly impact on this bill. 
I do not even go so far as to say that as to this bill those funds 
which are allocated to the loan fund, which really are still an 
unfunded mandate because the towns must pay back the loans, will be 
counted as unfunded mandate obligations. They should be. They are. But 
I have not taken that step either.
  Rather, I have tried to scale back the approach so that it would be 
more acceptable to the majority of the Members of this body, who I 
recognize are interested in passing an effective Safe Drinking Water 
Act, and this bill before us is an excellent act for that purpose.
  The manner in which I have done this is to essentially say if a town 
does not comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act because it is unable 
to get funding from the Federal Government to comply with the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, whether it comes as a grant or whether it comes as 
a loan, then the town or city will not be subject to fines from the EPA 
for noncompliance.
  The purpose of this really is to prevent the Federal Government from 
imposing what amounts to a double whammy on States and local 
governments by first hitting a State and local government with an 
unfunded mandate and then saying we are not only not going to pay for 
the mandate, but when you do not comply with the mandate we are going 
to fine you for not complying with the mandate. It really is an 
incredible double whammy, and unfortunately a large number of towns and 
cities get caught in it.
  So what this amendment does is put the fines on hold. It does not 
even abrogate the fines. It puts them on hold as long as there is no 
money to pay for the capital expenditures or the other expenditures 
which are incurred to comply with the mandate.
  It allows to be counted as a source of revenue for the purposes of 
paying for those funds the loan fund which, as I already mentioned, 
really is an unfunded mandate in and of itself, which we will for the 
purposes of this argument accept, and therefore go forward as if, when 
the loan fund is drawn down, the city or town will have been deemed to 
have received a Federal payment which would then mean that its failure 
to comply would institute the fines, or if the funds were available to 
it, its failure to comply would institute the fines.
  It is really a quite simple approach and says no funds, no fines. I 
think it is the only fair way to go. I do not understand how, in 
fairness, we can say to communities first that you must do something; 
second, that we are not going to pay for it; and third, if you do not 
do it and do not pay for it, we are going to fine you for not having 
done it. There seems to be a contradiction in that approach which 
undermines obviously a fairness in the matter of relationships between 
different levels of Government.
  I hope that the committee would accept this amendment. Obviously, if 
the committee is not willing to accept it, I would ask that we have a 
vote and if there no comments on this, I would ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire yields back the 
remainder of his time.
  Is there further debate?
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus].
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is the first opportunity that the 
committee has had to look at this amendment. It was just offered a few 
minutes ago. It is the first opportunity the committee has had to look 
at its language, to assess its effect in order to better understand the 
actual implications and manifestations of the amendment. It was my 
understanding that the Senator from New Hampshire was going to offer an 
amendment in this area dealing with so-called unfunded mandates, asking 
utilities to indicate on their bill the amount that is attributable to 
various provisions in the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  This is not that amendment. This is an entirely different amendment. 
So I must comment on it now as just a matter of first impression 
without having the opportunity to think it through.
  Mr. President, the basic question is unfunded mandates. What is the 
concern? The concern on the part of many people is that the U.S. 
Government asks various States and cities and localities to undertake 
certain action in the name of protecting the public health and safety, 
and the concern is that although the U.S. Government passes laws 
working with States to try to find the right balance and the right ways 
to encourage good health and safety standards, the U.S. Government does 
not provide full funding to the States and local communities 
commensurate with or equal to the requirements in the legislation.
  That is the basic concern. I might make several points, Mr. 
President. First of all, with respect to our environmental statutes, it 
is important to remember that our environmental statutes are really 
quite new. Our environmental statutes are basically about 20 years old. 
The Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, 
Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, these 
are all major environmental pieces of legislation, most of which were 
passed in the President Nixon era to address some very legitimate 
environmental concerns, and one of them is safe drinking water.
  Up until 1974, safe drinking water regulation was left to States, 
cities, communities, localities, and so forth. That is because 
traditionally in our country health and safety is the province of the 
States, and not the Federal Government. But the U.S. Congress acted in 
1974 and passed essentially the first national Safe Drinking Water Act. 
It had a different name at the time. Why did Congress do so? Congress 
did so because of the very deep concern that States, cities, and towns 
were not doing the job. They were not providing for good, healthy, safe 
drinking water in their communities. There were many instances of 
illnesses, of deaths, and just a lot of water systems in this country 
were not providing good, healthy, safe water.
  I think if there is anything this country is proud of, if there is 
any given that Americans take for granted and assume it is something 
they can count on, it is when they turn on the tap in their home that 
the water is going to be safe, they can drink it, or when they turn on 
their tap and make a cup of coffee it is going to be safe. They can 
drink it. It is clean, healthy, safe water.
  I might say that up until somewhat recently when Americans traveled 
overseas, traveled abroad, the basic question was, ``Can you drink the 
water? Is the water potable? Can you drink it? Is it healthy? Is it 
safe?'' We Americans assumed that American water was healthy and safe. 
We assumed somewhat correctly, with some arrogance perhaps, that water 
in other countries was not healthy, and was not safe. They could not 
drink it. You could not drink the water.
  Times are changing. In other countries, we are finding that the water 
is more healthy, is safe. You can drink the water in more countries 
than say 10, 20, 30 years ago.
  Now there is a slight concern in our country that some of our water 
is becoming maybe not quite as healthy, not quite as safe as we assumed 
that it was.
  For example, with the cryptosporidium outbreak in Milwaukee, there 
were headlines in many of the newspapers, ``Milwaukee water is not safe 
to drink.'' There was a moratorium on drinking the Milwaukee water for 
some time.
  In Washington, DC, another example: You could not drink the water in 
our Nation's Capital because it was not healthy, was not safe to drink. 
We finally got that straightened out after several days. Now visitors 
that come to our Nation's Capital can turn on the tap and drink the 
water without much concern or worry.
  Another point: This is a complex Nation of ours. We have a complex 
form of Government. We are not one sole Nation. We are not 50 nations. 
We are 1 Nation and 50 States. It is therefore incumbent upon us to try 
to find the right balance between Federal regulation and State and 
local regulation.
  We in this bill are doing so. That is, we are delegating much more 
back to the States--much, much more back to the States than was the 
case in the past.
  But again I might go back and reconstruct just briefly. We in the 
Congress in 1974 did pass the national act because the States were not 
doing the job. The States and the localities and the cities were not 
doing the job to protect their water. So Congress stepped in in 1974 
with the first, albeit mild, national legislation to help assure 
Americans that not only their own communities but when they travel 
across the country as tourists, when they go to visit friends and 
relatives in other parts of the country, that not only is the water in 
their community safe but it is also safe in the community they visit.
  Americans are in transit. They move about a lot. They change jobs. We 
hear in the health care debate about job lock. ``Gee. I cannot get a 
different job because my company provides good health insurance. The 
other job I am looking at, that employer does not provide good health 
insurance. So I am reluctant to leave, change jobs.'' It is called job 
lock.
  We certainly do not want a clean water lock where Americans feel, 
``Gee, I do not know if I can move to that State. I do not know if I 
can move to that community because their water might not be as good and 
as safe as it is in ours.''
  Think of the children. If there is anything we want our children to 
have is an assurance that the water they drink is healthy and safe.
  So unfunded mandates is the issue. This legislation dramatically 
reduces the burdens on communities, and particularly on small 
communities, small systems which feel the greatest brunt of the burden.
  I mentioned that in 1974 the Congress passed the first Safe Drinking 
Water Act. We delegated certain responsibilities to the EPA. What 
happened? By 1986, EPA had not done the job. EPA had written standards 
I think for only one or two additional contaminants. I have forgotten 
the exact number, but not very many contaminants. So Congress in 1986 
passed revisions to the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  The Republicans were in control of the Senate. The Republican 
President, Ronald Reagan, signed the bill. It passed the Senate almost 
unanimously, and was signed without much fanfare, increasing 
requirements and standards across the country to better assure 
Americans that the water is safe to drink.
  Here we are in 1994. What happened? What happened pretty simply is we 
went too far in 1986. We enacted standards that are too burdensome, 
particularly on small systems; that is, systems in communities with 
fewer than 3,300 people, because according to the laws of the economy 
of scale, the very large cities could much more easily allocate and 
distribute the monitoring costs and the capital costs associated with 
installing technology, filtering the water, and so forth than systems 
with too few hookups.
  In fact, in small systems it is sometimes 10 to 14 times more costly 
per household to meet the same standards as a big city. That is one of 
the reasons we are hearing this concern about unfunded mandates; that 
is, the mandate particularly on small systems. The large systems really 
do not care very much about the mandates. They can do it. It is not 
very costly to them. It is the small systems that are having a devil of 
a time meeting the current 1986 requirements.
  The bill before us very dramatically addresses that concern. It does 
so in many ways. First, we reduce the monitoring costs. There is a very 
significant reduction. In current law, all systems must monitor for 
each of the contaminants at least once a year over 3 years. 
Technically, it is one-quarter out of I think 3 or 4 years regardless 
of whether the monitoring--that is, the testing--detects the 
contaminant. That is in the law today.
  That is big systems, small systems, in year one, you monitor. You 
test for various contaminants to see whether the contaminants are 
present in your water. If there is no detection, currently you still 
have to continue to monitor. Monitoring is very expensive, again 
particularly for small systems.
  What are we providing? We are saying, OK. If you monitor--that is, if 
you test--and you find in the small system that there is no 
contaminant, you do not have to monitor again for that contaminant for 
3 more years. We have reduced the monitoring costs.
  I might add that monitoring is by far the biggest cost facing small 
systems. That is the biggest problem facing small systems--monitoring.
  We also modify monitoring in another way. What is it? It is the State 
monitoring program. There is a big, big reduction in monitoring costs; 
massive reduction in monitoring costs.
  Three States have taken advantage of the State waiver program: 
Wisconsin, Michigan, and I have forgotten the third State. In Michigan, 
the monitoring costs are now reduced to about 10, 12 percent of what 
they otherwise might be. There is a dramatic reduction in monitoring 
costs. Under the Michigan--as well as the Wisconsin--State monitoring 
program, those States figure out what parts of the State should we 
monitor because contaminants tend to be present? What other parts of 
our States should we waive monitoring because these contaminants tend 
not to be present? It depends upon where certain companies are located, 
it depends upon the groundwater systems, it depends upon a lot of 
factors. Again, it is a dramatic reduction. I do not know whether New 
Hampshire is taking advantage of the State monitoring system. But if 
any State were to take advantage of the monitoring program, they would 
find steep reductions in their monitoring costs.

  Another provision is that we make it easier for States to apply for 
and be given authority under the State monitoring program. Today there 
is a State grant program, and we allocate certain dollars among States 
to help them meet their concerns by allowing these dollars to be 
available to help implement State monitoring programs. We have heard 
that some States would say, gee, we would like to apply to the EPA, but 
it is onerous, and it is hard to go through the hoops and the redtape. 
We heard that concern and we are making the changes necessary in this 
bill so that States--all States--can apply with much more facility to 
significantly reduce their monitoring costs.
  What about the technology costs? Again, I repeat: By far, the most 
onerous burden that the ``Safe Drinking Water Act'' today puts on small 
systems is the monitoring costs. Without sacrificing health and safety, 
we are saying to small systems in particular, you do not have to 
monitor quite as often, again, if we do not find a contaminant. Beyond 
that, the States of New Hampshire, Rhode Island, California, or 
Montana, any State, can apply and work out a State program in some 
localities and monitor for contaminants, depending on the nature of the 
business and the industries and ground water vulnerability.
  What about the few small systems that find out that they've tested 
positive? There is a contaminant in the water. What do they do? We have 
taken care of that by saying that small systems, after looking at other 
alternatives, such as consolidation, joint administrative costs, and so 
forth, you can apply for what is called ``small system best 
availability technology''--off-the-shelf technology. I must say that as 
technology advances, the costs of off-the-shelf small system best 
available technology are getting a lot lower, dramatically lower. So we 
are significantly, dramatically reforming the mandates, saying there is 
much less of a mandate than there has been in the past.
  Second, we are funding the reform mandate. This legislation provides 
for a whole new program, a State revolving loan fund for States to 
address their drinking water system needs. The authorization is $600 
million in the first year, already provided for and appropriated; $600 
million has already been appropriated in this Congress for this year. 
We also provide for a billion-dollar authorization for next year and 
each of the succeeding years, until we get up to $6 or $7 billion. It 
is the safe drinking water State revolving loan fund, under which all 
States--New Hampshire, for example--could decide that here we have a 
small community having a devil of a time meeting the mandates. 
Remember, we have dramatically reformed them. They are much less than 
they were. I guess that is a 70 percent reduction in costs for 
monitoring, and a 20 to 50 percent reduction at least for technology 
for smaller systems, which are bearing the brunt of this. Also, there 
are big changes for the large systems, too. New Hampshire can decide, 
OK, this small system cannot quite make ends meet, so we are going to 
give them a very low interest loan to help them install their 
technology.
  We in Congress are funding the mandate. They might come back and say: 
What about the systems that cannot afford it? We provide in this 
legislation--I think it is up to 30 percent of the State revolving loan 
fund may be provided to systems by States for interest writeoff and 
principal writeoff--in effect, a grant to those small communities. We 
are providing the dollars. They are there.
  Another provision in this bill is in a whole new area related to the 
Clean Water Act. What is that? Essentially, it is the legislation that 
helps ensure that our rivers, lakes, and streams are cleaner. The Clean 
Water Act also has a State revolving loan fund for wastewater treatment 
plants for communities to make sure they have the wherewithal to build 
their sewage systems and their wastewater treatment systems. It is a 
big program. I think it is close to about $2 billion, roughly, 
annually. We are providing in this legislation that States can transfer 
dollars out of the Clean Water Act State revolving loan fund over to 
the safe drinking water loan fund and vice versa, which is a lot more 
flexibility for the States, to have a new source of money.
  I will sum up by saying that we are undertaking three very important 
constructive measures here that hit the nail on the head. That is, they 
direct this unfunded mandate concern, reforming the mandates, and say, 
OK, we are reducing the redtape and the burdens and particularly where 
it is most onerous--that is, particularly in the small systems--
reforming the mandates.
  No. 2, we are funding the remaining mandates with a new program, 
State revolving loan fund.
  Three, we are giving much more flexibility to the States, much more. 
Each State is different. The flexibility is essentially that States can 
set up their own monitoring program, at a very reduced cost. And, in 
addition, we are saying a Governor can switch dollars from the State 
drinking water revolving loan fund to the clean water revolving loan 
fund, and vice versa. There is more flexibility there. Those are some 
of the provisions contained in this legislation to address the very 
legitimate concern that the Senator has and that people across the 
country have.
  Our committee has met incessantly, constantly, with groups across the 
country to try to find a way to make this drinking water program work 
better. What we are doing here today is revolutionary. We are not 
standing on the floor with a whole new environmental statute. We are 
not enacting a whole new statute to rush in and address the problem. We 
are not doing that. We are taking an existing statute and reforming it, 
making it work better. We are addressing people's concerns. I think 
when Senators take a long, good hard look at the actual provisions of 
this bill, they will find that it makes sense.
  There is a coalition of drinking water systems and of organizations 
across the country that had some earlier concerns with this bill. We 
have worked with that coalition, and because of a series of changes, 
they no longer have concerns with this bill. At least they do not 
oppose this bill. I think that it is safe to say that they now support 
this bill. I have just been assured that they will support the bill.
  Let us get on to the amendment. It basically provides, as I 
understand it--and it was just handed to me--no penalties may be 
assessed by a Federal agency--essentially the EPA--and no action may 
proceed with respect to any system violating a provision of the Clean 
Water Act. I guess that would essentially be the U.S. attorney's 
office, at least in Federal court, that would file or commence any 
proceeding under the Clean Water Act. None of that could ever occur if 
there was a determination that there were not sufficient Federal 
dollars going to that--it is unclear here. I guess that it is the 
political subdivision fully providing for payment for that 
requirement--in this case a Federal requirement.
  Various questions come to my mind. No. 1: How do we know whether or 
not there is a so-called unfunded Federal mandate? Does that mean 100 
percent of the costs have to be paid? Does it mean that 80 percent are 
paid? Does it mean 90 percent are paid? What happens when there is a 
contract which provides for full payment; yet, we are only halfway 
through the terms of the contract? What year are we in? Because 
whenever a new system is built, it is not built in the first year. It 
takes several years to build it.
  And sometimes, with a small percentage of the States, revolving loan 
funds are allocated to pay for the first 2 percent requirements in the 
first year. The second year it might be 20 percent completed 
construction; it might take several years to complete the construction.
  So what do we mean by unfunded mandates? I can see all kinds of 
litigation to respond from this thing. I do not think it is the 
Senator's intent to stop dollars from being allocated to these systems.
  But then there is a more fundamental point that comes to my mind. 
What if a State is not providing for its people? And what if Uncle Sam 
says you must? And what if it turns out, in trying to work out how we 
pay for it, that the city is out of compliance because it is thumbing 
its nose at its citizens, or the Congress, or the State? Then, 
according to this, the Federal Government could not commence a penalty 
assessment proceeding, it could not commence any kind of a proceeding 
to bring that system into compliance.
  I would think, Mr. President, that the people who live in our cities 
and towns across our country, their first concern is that the water is 
safe. That is going to be their first concern. Is it healthy, safe 
water to drink? I bet that is their first concern.
  Second, they are going to be concerned about who is paying for it, 
and how it is paid for. I would guess they would not want the Congress, 
the States, the county commissioners, the water commissioners, to be in 
this big hassle which would result in no enforcement; no Federal 
enforcement, certainly. I would think they would want to make sure, 
first of all, that the water is safe and then, secondarily, to figure 
out some other way to address these questions.
  Again, I want to sum up by saying, I do not have a total account as 
to whether these so-called mandates are fully funded or not. I would 
not be surprised, in some instances, if they are overfunded. Some of 
these communities get an awful lot of dollars under State revolving 
loan fund allocations that may be above and beyond their needs. I do 
not know that.
  But this bill is so generous in reducing the mandates and so generous 
in providing dollars, it has occurred to this Senator several times 
that some of these communities and States around the country are 
getting a pretty good deal.
  We have certainly addressed the question of unfunded mandates with 
respect to the Safe Drinking Water Act. And that is all this amendment 
is tailored to, as I understand it, and that is the Safe Drinking Water 
Act.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I certainly appreciate the chairman's 
lengthy and very substantive explanation of the process the committee 
went through in developing the Safe Drinking Water Act. And, as I said 
in my opening statement, in commenting on my amendment, I thought it 
had done a fine job attempting to address this issue and that it had 
recognized unfunded mandates remain a serious concern, and that it had, 
as the chairman has outlined, undertaken a number of initiatives to try 
to address this.
  But, by the terms of its own report language, we have here an 
unfunded mandate of a minimum of $3 billion. That is the difference 
between what CBO estimates capital expenditure costs to be and what the 
revolving fund will be. That does not account for the significant 
dollars which the chairman also reflected on relative to compliance and 
relative to monitoring, which are very, very expensive.
  Even if the local communities are able to apply for the technical 
assistance grants, even if they are able to apply for the direct grants 
out of the revolving fund, there is still the compliance issue which is 
extremely expensive.
  So there is no question but there is a significant cost put on local 
communities to comply with this bill. And I do congratulate the 
committee for attempting to address those costs and attempting, in a 
very logical way, to do that; and in a way that has not traditionally 
been done in many of the environmental bills that has come before this 
Congress throughout the 1970's and 1980's. So I hope this is a new path 
we will be seeking, because it is a more reasonable path of dealing 
with different levels of the Federal Government, especially local 
communities.
  But that does not resolve the problem completely, because there will 
be instances where the Federal Government will be demanding of a local 
community that it take action, but then it will say, but we have no 
funds available from the loan fund--which, remember, is also an 
unfunded mandate, but which issue I am setting aside for a moment--but 
there will be no funds available from the loan fund because the loan 
fund will have been exhausted for that year and it may not be available 
until next year or the following year or maybe it will not be available 
at all. But, in any event, there is no money at the point when they are 
told to do something to help them do it.
  I am not saying the town or the city can escape the law and say, 
well, therefore, we do not have to do this. That is not part of this 
amendment.
  What I am saying is that, at that point, there cannot be fines 
assessed against the towns and the cities for not complying. Rather, 
they are going to have to sit down at the table and work out an 
agreement. That is the whole point of this amendment; where the EPA, 
and the State, and the local communities that are being impacted will 
figure out where they are going to get the money to do this with.
  That is a no funds, no fine approach. It is not an approach that says 
if there are no funds you do not have to do it. It is not that type of 
approach. Although, as I have mentioned, there are a number of bills in 
this body right now which have a majority of sponsorship of the 
membership of this body which say exactly that and where they say this 
bill could not go forward in a number of instances because of that 
situation. But that is not the tenor of this amendment.
  What this amendment tries to do is to avoid the double whammy. First, 
you do not give them the funds, then you hit them with a fine. All we 
are saying, if you do not give them the funds, you cannot hit them with 
a fine. You can hit them with a fine later on if they do not get the 
funds available. But, first, you have to have the funds there so there 
is a little fairness in this process.
  Now, the chairman raised two points in his commentary on this. He 
said, what is an unfunded mandate? I think it is essentially defined by 
the body that is assessing the fine. If the EPA comes in and says, 
``This must be done,'' that is a mandate. And if it says, ``This must 
be done and if you do not do it we are going to fine you,'' then that 
is clearly the mandate that is being talked about. And if there is a 
fund out there to pay for it, then the issue of it being unfunded is no 
longer in question.
  If the State has the funds, the EPA can point to the funds and the 
town has to either go and apply for that money and get that money to do 
what it is supposed to do, what it has been appointed to by the EPA, or 
designed by the State environmental services agency, or if it does not 
do it, it gets fined because the money is there.
  But if the money is not there, not in the revolving fund, and the EPA 
says, ``You must do this,'' then it cannot assess a fine at that point. 
It can the next year, if the money comes back into the revolving fund. 
If the State replenishes that revolving fund, then the EPA can say, 
``Well, we told you to do that last year and you did not do that. That 
does not relieve you of the responsibility. This year the money is 
there, so we expect you to do it.'' Then they can assess the fine.
  So I really do not see that as being a legitimate point of 
contention. First, the unfunded mandate is defined by the terms of a 
filing, which the EPA would undertake and, secondly, clearly if the 
money is there, fines have to occur or compliance has to occur. So it 
ends up as even fewer lawsuits. In fact, it energizes the settlement of 
the matter, rather than the opposite occur as to what I think has been 
represented by the chairman as a possible problem with this amendment.
  This amendment is just logic. It is fair play and common sense. All 
it says is, ``Hey, listen. You can tell a city to do something''--and 
you have a right to tell them to do something; we are not denying that 
right to this bill; to clean up their water, make sure it is clean--
``but when you tell them to do it, if you cannot fund it, you cannot 
fine them for not doing it.''
  And since the chairman made, at great length, a statement that said 
basically what we are going to do is come in and fund here, we are 
going to come in with enough money over the time period to do it, this 
amendment should not even be needed to be debated. It should be 
accepted on the grounds that, hey, it is never going to be needed 
because at some point the process will be funded and, therefore, the 
amendment will not have an effect, if the chairman's philosophy of the 
way this is going to work works out, and I hope it does.
  But there is always the occurrence that may come about that maybe the 
Appropriations Committee is a little short of money one year and does 
not fully fund the authorization; maybe for some reason the revolving 
fund in the State has drawn down a lot faster than it was expected and 
it cannot fulfill all the obligations that year and has to wait until 
next year. In those instances, I do not think it is fair to be 
assessing fines against towns which are not complying. It does not mean 
they do not have to comply at some point. It just means they cannot be 
fined until we can help them out by giving them the dollars to support 
them. So the amendment is simple. I am not sure when the chairman 
wishes to go forward with a vote on this, if he wants to go forward now 
or if he wants to roll the vote over to a time certain with other 
votes. I do not know what his plans are but I would be amenable to 
whatever he wishes to do in that regard.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I commend the Senator from New Hampshire 
for his interest in these unfunded Federal mandates. He has spent a lot 
of time on this and is deeply concerned. He was a Governor, as perhaps 
he has pointed out, so he has seen the effects of the Federal 
Government levying requirements on the States without fully funding 
them.
  However, it is nothing unusual. I must say, although the Clean Water 
Act and waste treatment requirements under that are not 100 percent 
fully funded, as we all know--the State puts up some, the Federal 
Government puts up usually about 75 percent--but in the end the 
communities and the State have to obey, otherwise our waters would 
never be cleaned up.
  As I understand the amendment here--correct me if I am wrong--first, 
it deals solely with the Safe Drinking Water Act. Second, as I 
understand it, it says that there can be no requirements by the Federal 
Government levying on the communities requirements to keep their water 
clean unless the Federal Government has fully funded those 
requirements.
  As I understand, it is not quite that way. It says there can be no 
fines levied for failure to comply. Am I correct in that?
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Rhode Island is correct. It is the issue 
of when the fines can be levied that is raised by this amendment.
  Mr. CHAFEE. In other words, if the fines cannot be levied, there is 
really no real requirement that the community obey? I think that 
follows; otherwise, what is the incentive for them to obey? If they do 
not obey there is no penalty?
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator from Rhode Island will yield, first, the 
issue is, if you are going to order the towns to comply, you should 
support the towns with funds to pay for that. If you do not have the 
ability to support the towns with funds in that year, then the fine 
will not apply that year. The next year you can make the funds 
available and then you can fine the towns to force them to comply.
  Mr. CHAFEE. What the Senator from New Hampshire is saying, in effect, 
is that the Federal Government has no ability to levy a safe drinking 
water requirement on a community unless the Federal Government is 
prepared to pay 100 percent of the funds required to comply with that 
demand by the Federal Government, with those regulations?
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield, I am saying, under this act, to 
the extent the Federal Government directs the communities to undertake 
an action, if the Federal Government is not supporting that action with 
funds, then the Federal Government can continue the directive but it 
cannot insist on collecting fines--which would be the double whammy 
effect of, first, you tell them to spend the money, and then, if you do 
not have any money to support the event, you tell them you are going to 
fine them--until you do support them.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I am not sure in the amendment of the Senator that it 
says they cannot afford to do so. It is just if they do not do so, as I 
understand the amendment. I can be corrected.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield further, there is no condition 
of affluence testing, who can and who cannot comply with the Federal 
law. If the Federal Government is going to enforce the law, the theory 
is the Federal Government should pay for the cost.
  Mr. CHAFEE. It seems to me, Madam President, that what we are doing 
here, if this amendment should be adopted--and after all, if it applies 
here, I see no reason why not the next step, when we have a Clean Water 
Act, why the same requirements should not be levied on that. If the 
Federal Government is not prepared to pay 100 percent of the cost of 
waste treatment facilities to clean up lakes and rivers and streams, 
then the local communities do not have to do anything.
  But that is a step ahead. I am going to stick right to this treatment 
of safe drinking water. It seems to me the Federal Government, with the 
tremendous mobility that exists within our populations and with the 
tremendous amount of travel that takes place where somebody from Ohio 
is going to California or somebody from Nevada is going to New 
Hampshire or somebody from Montana comes to Rhode Island, that the 
Federal Government has a certain right to ensure, to the extent it can, 
to the citizens of our Nation, that the water they drink is clean. If 
the Federal Government is going to step in and be helpful, that is 
grand--as we do in this legislation. We start, under this bill, with 
$600 million of revolving funds to help the local communities produce 
clean water. This is the first time we have had a revolving fund in 
that area, so this is a big step forward.
  But to say the Federal Government has no power to ensure that 
traveling citizens of this Nation are going to be safe where they go in 
the water they drink unless the Federal Government pays 100 percent of 
the cost I think is a very unusual step. I do not think that is a fair 
requirement to levy in connection with the safety and the health and 
well-being of our citizens.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator from Rhode Island will yield, I think it 
would be unusual for someone to travel from Montana to New Hampshire 
and find that the water in New Hampshire was any less of a quality than 
it was in Montana. I believe the scenario that has been laid out is at 
best hypothetical and a bit exaggerated. The fact is, the people who 
live in the community where the water is delivered are the ones who 
have the most significant interest in maintaining the quality of that 
water.
  I guess the Senator is going forward with the assumption the only 
people who are sensitive to having water that is clean and potable are 
people who live in Washington or work in Washington. I know the Senator 
is not of that mind. I know he recognizes fully the people of Rhode 
Island and New Hampshire and the towns of Barrington, RI, the town of 
Nashua, NH, are as sensitive to having good water as the people are in 
any other part of this country.
  So there is clearly an innate and inherent incentive for the local 
community to maintain its water supply at a high level of quality. And 
traditionally in this country that has occurred.
  That is not to argue against the concept of a Federal law in the 
area. No, I think a Federal law in the area makes considerable sense, 
and I think the law this committee has produced is an excellent piece 
of legislation. But when the Federal Government decides to step onto 
the turf of the local community, which has the primary interest of 
delivering water to its citizenry, and tell the local community exactly 
what it should be doing relative to the delivery of water to that 
community, something it has been doing for probably 200 or 300 years, 
at least in the New England area, without this law--prior to 1974 when 
it was first initiated, and amended in 1986, I guess--then I think the 
Federal Government, once it decides to enter into the issue of 
directing the local community as to how they are going to manage their 
water supply, has a very definite obligation to pay for the additional 
costs that it is putting onto the local community.
  I am not even demanding, or suggesting, that occur. I am not even 
requesting that occur in this amendment. If I wanted to take that 
approach, I would have brought forward one of the many bills of this 
body that do exactly that, that say the mandates should not go forward 
and there be no need to comply unless they are fully funded. Nor am I 
even pointing out that the funding in this bill is really an unfunded 
mandate in and of itself. There is no substantive--it is a loan, it is 
not a direct grant, and therefore the towns have to pay it back and 
thus the funding is an unfunded mandate.
  But what I am saying and what I think makes eminent sense is, if you 
are going to demand the communities do this, then you cannot say they 
are going to be fined when you do not fund it.
  It is a very simple approach. It does not say they do not have to 
comply. It says they do have to comply when the revolving funds have 
the moneys that are available. And in practice, of course, as the 
Senator from Rhode Island certainly knows, that is exactly what is 
going to happen.
  As these revolving funds develop the cash flow to support the 
compliance activity across States, you are going to have compliance 
occurring. All I am saying is let us not get the cart ahead of the 
horse by requiring fines before there is money to pay for the 
compliance, because you know compliance is going to occur because you 
have done a good job of trying to address the issue of funding.
  I think if you look at the practical aspects of how this works versus 
the theoretical and hypothetical aspects, it becomes a very legitimate 
proposal.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I think we are embarking on an unusual 
path for the Federal Government to require compliance: When it is 
granting a substantial sum of money but not 100 percent that it cannot 
make any requirement. Maybe the thing should be reversed. Maybe we 
ought to have a provision in here that no money goes to any State that 
will not comply. Maybe that is the answer: Any State that does not want 
to comply will not get a nickel. The money will go to those States who 
want to participate, and by wanting to participate, I mean they are 
willing to put up their share, whatever the share might be.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield on that point, of course, that 
is an option, and if the committee wishes to pursue that--as you know, 
on public works projects dealing with Federal highways, that is exactly 
the approach this Congress has taken in the area of helmet laws and in 
the area of speed limits.
  So, yes, that is clearly a public policy approach that can be taken. 
The committee has decided to go this other way. As long as the 
committee decided to go the other route, then let us not get the cart 
ahead of the horse and let us not have a situation where you do not 
fund and then you fine.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, Senators may be watching this debate and 
assuming that this is another amendment offered by the Senator from New 
Hampshire under the unfunded mandates rubric. They may think this 
debate is on that amendment. I want to make it clear to Senators 
listening to this debate that this debate is not on that amendment. 
This debate is on a wholly separate, new, amendment that the Senator 
from New Hampshire brought to the floor and we are looking at for the 
first time.
  This amendment is a beguiling, seductive amendment. It sounds pretty 
simple. Basically, it says if there are no funds, no fines. I might 
say, Madam President, that this is not that amendment at all. This is 
an amendment which basically has abolished Federal enforcement of the 
Safe Drinking Water Act. That is what this amendment does. This 
amendment runs the great risk, and that is not an overstatement, of 
essentially abolishing Federal enforcement under the Federal Safe 
Drinking Water Act. That is what it does.
  Why do I say so? I say so because any system, any community that does 
not want to comply with the act could very cleverly hire a lawyer to 
find some argument where the requirements that it must face, A, are all 
Federal and, B, are not totally, fully funded today, at this moment. 
They may prevail, and that means no Federal enforcement.
  I do not think that is what Americans want. They do want Federal 
enforcement. I think Americans want to be assured that the water they 
are drinking is safe. They want Federal enforcement, but they want 
proper Federal enforcement.
  I have a whole list of questions I could ask the Senator from New 
Hampshire to see how his amendment would take effect. For example, is 
he asking for a full 100 percent Federal?
  My first question goes to the State revolving loan fund. There is a 
20-percent State match to 80 percent Federal funds required. Is the 
Senator from New Hampshire saying that the U.S. Congress must not 
provide only 80 percent in the State revolving funds, but must provide 
a full 100 percent? Is the Senator saying the State's 20 percent 
requirement can be withdrawn, that the States do not have to contribute 
their 20 percent to the State revolving loan fund? Is that what the 
Senator is suggesting?
  Mr. GREGG. As I understand the act, it requires States put in 20 
percent; is that correct?
  Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator is correct. Under the State revolving loan 
fund that exists in the Clean Water Act and under the new State 
revolving loan fund under the Safe Drinking Water Act--that is the bill 
before us--it provides for a match: 80 percent Federal, 20 percent 
State.
  Mr. GREGG. Then there would be compliance if the Federal Government 
had 80 percent of the funds.
  Mr. BAUCUS. So the Senator is saying that if the U.S. Congress 
appropriates 80 percent of the funds under the State revolving loan 
fund, and if that State revolving loan fund pays for the system's 
requirements, the State could not claim unfunded mandates as it affects 
any enforcement action against that community? Is that what the Senator 
is saying?
  Mr. GREGG. I am not sure I understood the whole hypothetical. 
Essentially, I believe the concept of what the Senator from Montana is 
saying is correct. This is not an attempt to undermine the thrust of 
this bill. I really do think it does a disservice to the amendment to 
aggrandize it to such a level, as the Senator from Montana has. This is 
simply an attempt to make it clear that when the fining process starts 
to occur, then the Federal Government will have done our job.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I understand the Senator, but I am trying to understand 
how the Senator's amendment works. Again, this is a first impression. I 
had not seen the amendment until 20 minutes, half an hour ago when the 
Senator brought this amendment to the floor. No one has had a chance to 
look at it. I am reading it to get a sense of how it works.
  For example, if I understand the Senator's answer to my question, 
that under the State revolving loan fund contemplated in the bill, 
where Uncle Sam provides 80 percent and States 20 percent, if that 
fund's loans to the community fully accommodates that community's 
requirements, is the Federal mandate fully funded?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes, it would be.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate that. So the answer to the question is it is 
fully funded under the present State revolving loan fund where Uncle 
Sam provides 80 percent and the States 20 percent for the system.
  Mr. GREGG. If that is the language of the bill. The mandate is 
defined by the bill in a sense of what the Federal Government must do. 
If the Federal Government's share was 50 percent, it was fully funded.
  I would take as a hypothetical another area where there is a mandate, 
91-142, which is the special ed student situation, there you have a 
suggestion in the law that the Federal Government go to 40 percent of 
the cost of the special education systems of our schools. If the 
Federal Government went that 40 percent, they would be fully funded.
  Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator anticipated my next question.
  Mr. GREGG. We can adjust that number.
  Mr. BAUCUS. If the Congress provided, in its wisdom, for 1 percent 
and the States had to match 99 percent----
  Mr. GREGG. The purpose of this amendment was not to address the 
underlying issue, which is the core question, which is when is the 
Federal Government being irresponsible in its unfunded mandate 
activity.
  Mr. BAUCUS. So it is the Senator's position that the Congress would 
not be irresponsible if the Congress decided to provide 1 percent of 
the revolving loan fund as opposed to 80 percent. That would not be 
irresponsible?
  Mr. GREGG. I feel that is very irresponsible. In fact, I considered 
offering an amendment which would address the underlying question you 
are raising which is the much more fundamental question of the issue of 
unfunded mandates. This is not the core issue of what is and is not an 
unfunded mandate. I think we are confusing it in the debates right now.
  What this gets to is the fine issue. There is this other core issue, 
and I hope it is going to be taken up at some point in this Congress 
because I know there are a lot of bills floating around on the issue, 
and some have significant sponsorship. But that is not the issue that 
is being adjudicated by this amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Let me ask another question so we understand how it 
operates. Let us say a community in New Hampshire is starting to 
install a new technology to meet a standard that is provided for in the 
Safe Drinking Water Act; a good standard; a standard that must be 
addressed if the people are going to have safe water.
  Let us further assume that this is a 5-year project. You do not just 
build this new technology and install it immediately.
  Now let us say it is year one and contracts have been let. As the 
Senator knows, under the usual workings of the State revolving loan 
fund, each year the State designates a different portion of the State 
revolving loan fund, actually loans different portions to different 
communities in different years.
  So in year one, the system is not yet constructed. Certainly no big 
mandate here. Let us say that for some reason or another the system 
decides it does not want to proceed and therefore is in violation of 
the law, although there is a contract and assurance that the dollars 
are there in the revolving loan fund.
  Is the Senator saying because the dollars have not been fully 
provided, because the system is not complete yet, that----
  Mr. GREGG. No. In my estimation, you would then be able to assess the 
contractor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. What if the community goes beyond the grace period in the 
bill? The legislation before us provides certain grace periods. As long 
as this system is making a good-faith effort, there is no prosecution. 
What happens after that grace period?
  Mr. GREGG. If funds are available and there is a contractual 
obligation, it seems to me the fine is assessed.
  Mr. BAUCUS. What about interest rates? Let us say the interest rate 
the community must pay Uncle Sam is not providing for interest 
payments. Is Uncle Sam fully funding the mandate or not?
  Mr. GREGG. I would presume--and we are getting into some 
hypotheticals, which I think is worth getting into, and I think the 
answers so far have reflected the fact this is a legitimate amendment 
that is not going to destroy the bill, but is just trying to get at the 
core issue of fines versus funding.
  But I think in that context you would presume that the agreement that 
had been worked out which would have drawn down the revolving fund 
would have interest rate language in it. I know of very few that do not 
have interest rate language in them. So I presume that would be a fund 
advantage.
  Mr. BAUCUS. One other question. What happens when a community 
decides, for whatever reason, it wants to voluntarily not accept 
Federal funds. It does not want to pay the interest rate in the State 
revolving loan fund, for whatever reason. It decides it does not want 
to participate in the State revolving loan program? In that case, would 
Federal prosecution be precluded because the mandate on this system 
does not have commensurate Federal funds? It does not in this case 
because the community has decided it does not want them. Would Federal 
enforcement therefore be precluded?
  Mr. GREGG. No, I do not believe so at all. I think this amendment 
makes it fairly clear that in that instance the funds are available; 
therefore----
  Mr. BAUCUS. I must say that is not the language of the amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Well, I think that is the purpose and the language of the 
amendment, to accomplish exactly that.
  Mr. BAUCUS. No. The amendment says, ``The Administrator may not 
commence a penalty assessment proceeding under,'' and so on and so 
forth, ``or proceeding results from an unfunded Federal mandate.'' That 
is what the language of the amendment says.
  Here is another example. What happens when the State of New Hampshire 
or any State applies for a waiver, a monitoring waiver program, so 
that----
  Mr. GREGG. Excuse me.
  Mr. BAUCUS. If I may complete my question--so that the State has its 
own monitoring system. This is a State monitoring system now. It is not 
a Federal monitoring system. Now, let us say that under the State 
monitoring system the State imposes certain requirements. Under the 
Senator's amendment, would Federal prosecution be precluded if a 
community does not properly monitor because the community is operating 
under a State program, not under a Federal program?
  Mr. GREGG. To get back to the Senator's prior question, I believe my 
answer was accurate. If you look at the definition, you will see, if 
the funding is available, the capacity is there to assess the fine. If 
the community decides it does not want to pursue the funding for 
whatever reason, that is irrelevant. The funding is available; the fine 
can be pursued.
  On the followup question, which is, if I understand it correctly, if 
States are undertaking the compliance activity of monitoring, does the 
EPA have the right to come in and pursue also a Federal action against 
the community?
  I would think yes, if the funds are there. And, again, it is an issue 
of whether the funds are there. If the funds are there and the 
community has the available funds, has had made available to it the 
funds, then it seems to me a fine is clearly assessable.
  I think the chairman is confusing the core issue here, which is a 
very legitimate one, which the committee has, I have argued a number of 
times, attempted to meet, the core issue of unfunded mandate with the 
issue here of fines.
  What I am saying is we should not hit these communities with a double 
whammy. I do not want to keep repeating it, and maybe I should choose 
some other phraseology to get it across a little better. But what I do 
not want to see happening is if the town does not have the funds 
available to it, then it gets fined for something it does not get funds 
to do. All I am saying is as soon as the funds are available, it could 
be fined. Under the bill, as I understand the structure, those funds 
are going to become available over a period of time because the bill is 
authorized at a level which, over a period of time, should fully--I am 
not sure of ``fully,'' but should significantly reduce the costs out 
there to the communities.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wofford). The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I do not want to prolong this too much 
longer. Essentially, the Senator from New Hampshire said this bill does 
not go into the difficult question of what is and what is not an 
unfunded mandate. That is very true. That is clear. This bill does not 
go into that point, and very precisely because it is a very complex, 
difficult morass to decide.
  The effect of the Senator's amendment is to give lawyers a field day 
in finding one way or another, in claiming for one reason or another, 
that this requirement, for this technology, in this community is not 
fully funded by Uncle Sam. I can think of countless numbers of 
arguments that attorneys can make.
  Therefore, Mr. President, this amendment essentially renders useless, 
Federal enforcement because if it is a long, complex system, there will 
be endless litigation as to whether or not there is full funding of the 
mandate.
  I might also say, Mr. President, that we have gone a long way to find 
new dollars to fund mandates. Look at the chart behind me. I do not 
know if the Senator can see the chart very well. We tried to make it 
big so everybody could see.
  Mr. GREGG. I appreciate that. I am just getting to the age where I 
need glasses.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Under current law, safe drinking water funding in fiscal 
years 1994 through 2000 will be $420 million. That money is going to 
the States. Under this bill, if it passes, $7.3 billion will go to 
States to fund the reformed mandates that the bill provides.
  The basic intent of the Senator's amendment is to address the very 
large issue of unfunded mandates.
  Again, I say to the Senator and to anyone listening that this bill 
addresses unfunded mandates; No. 1, by reforming the mandates; No. 2, 
by funding the reform mandates, and, No. 3, by providing flexibility to 
the States so they can adjust to local conditions quite easily.
  Again, just to repeat, from 1994 through the year 2000, under current 
law, States will receive about $420 million to pay for requirements 
under the Safe Drinking Water Act. If this bill passes, that increases 
at least fourteenfold to $7.3 billion over the same number of years. It 
is a whole new start. The State revolving loan fund is all new. It will 
go a long way to address these issues.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  Mr. BAUCUS. If I might, one other point, Mr. President. It is not as 
if the EPA is sending out thousands of inspectors to harass local water 
system operators either. That is just not the case. There is not a 
massive Federal enforcement apparatus in place. I might say that in 
1992, the Environmental Protection Agency brought 269 cases under the 
Clean Water Act--not this act, a different act.
  In 1992, there were 269 cases. They brought 303 cases under the Clean 
Air Act; different act, not this act. Under this act, it brought 18; 
only 18 cases, not a massive number of cases.
  In addition in 1992, the highest penalty under the Clean Water Act, a 
different act, was $2.9 million. Under the Clean Air Act, the highest 
penalty in 1992 was $6.7 million. What was it under the Safe Drinking 
Water Act, this act? The highest was $70,000. I think the average of 
that year was $38,000 for the two cases.
  One other point: There are 200,000 public water systems in this 
country. There are only 60 EPA drinking water inspectors. There are 
200,000 systems in our country, and only 60 inspectors. It is not a 
whole, big massive enforcement bureaucratic apparatus that is going 
after all of these systems.
  Another point that is important to remember. I do not know if the 
Senator fully intends this amendment. A significant percentage of the 
drinking water systems in our country are private. As I read this 
amendment, it only applies to the public systems. It basically says the 
administrator may not assess a penalty against a political subdivision, 
et cetera. It says political subdivision. Apparently, he has exempted 
privates, which is to say that a significant mumber of the water 
systems in this country would be discriminated against under the 
Senator's amendment because they would not have the benefit of saying, 
``Gee, don't enforce against me because I am private and not public.''
  Another point I think worth making is that there are a lot of, a good 
number of, communities frankly that need some Federal enforcement. 
There is one city that the committee is aware of that for 10 years 
refused to correct violations of bacterial contaminant standards under 
the Safe Drinking Water Act. Frankly, it was only when the EPA went to 
court to assess a penalty did that city finally begin to take serious 
steps to remedy the problems.
  In some sense, what I am saying is, frankly, a lot of cities, a lot 
of States, do not want to do the job themselves. It is politically 
difficult. It is politically difficult for a local county attorney or 
an attorney general to address violations in the State. Many States 
say, ``Gee. Uncle Sam, do this for us. It is hard for us to do the 
right thing here.''
  If this amendment passes, it seriously jeopardizes not only the 
ability of local law enforcement officials to say, ``Gee. Let the Feds 
do it because I don't want to do it myself,'' but more importantly, it 
very seriously undermines the whole Federal enforcement program under 
the Safe Drinking Water Act, which is not massive, I might add. As the 
data already provided, that is a good, strong indication that this is 
not a big Federal enforcement program. It is pretty mild to say the 
least. It is important in those cases where the communities are not 
living up to the standards, and they should.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield to the Senator, and then I will yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Senator raised a number of points. I do 
not want to carry this into an extended period of time because I know 
there are other Senators who want the floor.
  First, some things need to be responded to. This whole issue of 
excessive attorney fees, and a great deal of lawyer activity today is a 
problem with the system. So I do not see that that is necessarily going 
to be impacted negatively by delaying the fine.
  Second, I would point out that the enforcement language of this does 
not affect if funds are available. So the instance that the Senator 
talked about, I presume there were available funds going to that city 
to fund the activity that needed to be corrected. Therefore, there were 
those available funds. Then compliance would have to occur and the 
fines would be assessed. This is not applied to private water 
companies. That was intentionally done because the issue of unfunded 
mandates is a public one to a large degree, and I did not want to get 
into the whole ancillary question of the private-public debate and the 
profitable part of the corporations engaged in the delivery of water 
and how you would end up subsidizing them through this language.
  So we would be stuck with the taxpayer impact event because the issue 
here is impact on the tax base and the reallocation of the tax base 
through unfunded mandates.
  All this amendment says again is that if it is not funded, you do not 
fine. It does not undercut the basic goals of this bill I do not think. 
In fact, it probably encourages the basic goals of this bill because 
this bill is addressed, as the Senator so well pointed out, at trying 
to fund most of the mandates. As long as they are funded, there will be 
no fines.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I rise to speak strongly against this amendment by the 
Senator from New Hampshire, and really back the comments made by the 
chairman, the Senator from Montana, and the ranking member, the Senator 
from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee.
  I have to say that I have been around the House of Representatives 
and the Senate now for 12 years, and I have never seen a committee 
chairman and a ranking member work so well together, bend over 
backwards to accommodate Senators' concerns. As a matter of fact, in 
many cases I kept saying you are bending over a little too much.
  But the fact is that when the two of them stand up here and put their 
credibility on the line and say that this is essentially a gutting 
amendment, I hope that my colleagues listening to this debate from 
their offices will take that to heart. There should be an overwhelming 
vote against this particular amendment.
  I want to explain why. I want to speak today not only as a U.S. 
Senator, which I am very proud to be getting elected and being from the 
largest State in the Union, a State that has 31 million people, but 
also as a former county supervisor where I was very proud to be a 
locally-elected official representing a supervisorial district in a 
very beautiful suburban area, and one who always said that the local 
people should have a very strong voice in whatever it is we are doing.
  At the same time, I always believed, and I believe it even more 
today, that the Federal Government has an obligation to protect the 
health and safety of all the people of this country. As Senator Chafee 
has said, and as Senator Baucus has said, when people go from one State 
to another, they ought to know that if they pick up a glass of water 
like this one, which I find myself doing quite often here, that it is 
safe to drink the water.
  I would like to bring us back to the reality of why we are here. And 
rather than get into a big argument about terms of art and language of 
the amendment, and the interpretation of the Senator from New Hampshire 
of how it would work, bring us back to the core reason we have this 
bill before us.
  Mr. President, every year 900,000 Americans get sick from tap water. 
In one city we had 104 people die. If that is not enough for us to 
support a decent and enforceable law, I do not know what else is. There 
is a minimum that our people should expect from us if we deserve to be 
here, that we are willing to stand up and be counted and ensure that 
the drinking water is safe. I would have to say that this bill is not 
doing that with a heavy hand. You can see that there is a whole new 
attitude on this Senate floor in relation to this bill. And there is 
absolutely an understanding that we have to be certain that local 
government and State government is not so weighed down with mandates 
that are not funded that they simply throw up their hands, and say, 
``We cannot do it anymore.''
  I have a great sympathy again for local government. But I have no 
sympathy--and let me state very, very clearly--for those in office who 
would refuse to ensure the people that their drinking water is 
safe, because if there is any job we have as elected officials, whether 
local, State, or Federal, it is to protect the health of our people. 
That is what it is about.

  Let me give you an example. Under this amendment--and the Senator 
from Montana has posed a number of questions, and I am just going to 
make a comment. I have read this amendment. Let us say there is a 
county board of supervisors or a city council that runs a water system, 
or they could be a water board, and they have decided they do not think 
lead is dangerous. Now people come before them, and they have the 
National Academy of Sciences report, they have physicians, but they 
decide that in their philosophy, this is not a problem. So they decide 
they are not going to regulate the amount of lead in the water supply. 
And children are being born brain damaged. We know that happens.
  Under this amendment, you could hide behind unfunded mandates and 
say, gee, it is not that we philosophically oppose it, but we did not 
really get all the funding, and they look at the record of this 
conversation here, and it is a little unclear, so they hire a lawyer, 
and it is 10 years down the road, and kids are drinking this water. Of 
course, I think the parents would probably not allow them to drink the 
water. They would buy bottled water, or they might move to another 
community. That is the effect of this type of an amendment.
  So I say, Mr. President, again, when we have the chairman and the 
ranking member standing up here and saying, look, they understand the 
problem that the Senator from New Hampshire has raised, that absolutely 
we have to be mindful; but this act is mindful of the issues of 
unfunded mandates and underfunded mandates. If we gut the 
enforceability of our Government here, this bill might as well not even 
be here. I, frankly, would understand it if both of our leaders on the 
committee--which is called, by the way, the Environment and Public 
Works Committee--withdrew the bill, because it would not have any means 
of enforcing.
  I will close by reading the words of the amendment.

       The Administrator may not commence a penalty assessment 
     proceeding under this subsection against a political 
     subdivision, and any pending penalty or penalty assessment or 
     collection proceeding under this subsection against a 
     political subdivision shall be waived----

  In other words, there will be no assessment, there will be no fine, 
there will be no enforcement.

     if the noncompliance of the subdivision that is the subject 
     of the penalty or proceeding results from an unfunded Federal 
     mandate.

  So it is a fancy way of saying we want a little fig leaf that we can 
hide behind, so that we have an excuse not to make sure that the 
children are drinking safe water, that pregnant women are drinking safe 
water, that the frail elderly are drinking safe water, that all of us 
can be certain that we are drinking safe water.
  Mr. President, I think I have been as clear as I can be. I strongly 
oppose this amendment, and I hope that our colleagues will stand up and 
be counted and support our chairman and ranking member.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for 
that strong statement.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I must respond briefly to the Senator from 
California, because I believe it is a bit unusual for those who are not 
actually drinking the water to expect that they are going to have even 
a higher level of concern about the water than those who do drink it. I 
mean that is essentially the tenor of the argument, which is that the 
elected officials in--wherever it was--or the county commissioner 
group, or water commissioner group, is going to somehow turn its back 
on not only the community that it lives in, but its own good health, 
but that we here in Washington are going to know how to take care of it 
better for them. Now, that may be. That situation might occur. That 
hypothetical is a possibility. I suppose that is true, but it is not a 
likelihood.
  Most people, when they are elected to public office, are elected 
because they conscientiously wish to improve their community, and if 
they know something is wrong with the water, they are going to try to 
do something about it primarily out of their own concern. I really 
think that to raise issues like pregnant women and lead in the water is 
to use hyperbole that is not relevant to this amendment, which is not 
really a gutting amendment, as the Senator characterized it.
  It is a simple amendment that says, listen, if you do not fund it, 
you do not fine until you do fund it. And it is reasonable that you are 
going to be funding all of this. On the chairman's description of the 
way this bill works, that is going to occur. So this amendment may 
never come into play. But we should at least have the fairness at the 
local level to say that until we can fund it, we are not going to fine 
you or hit you with that double shot.
  I yield back my time, and I suggest to the manager of the bill that 
if we can come to a time certain, we can bring it to a vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I understand there is at least one Senator 
coming to the floor wishing to speak against this amendment. He is on 
his way. It is only fair and appropriate to wait until he arrives.
  Before he arrives, however, I do think it is important to point out 
that this is a gutting amendment. Why do I say that? I say that 
because, first of all, there are not very many EPA inspectors. The 
enforcement personnel are pretty thin, and there are not going to be a 
lot of cases when EPA is coming into a community or the U.S. attorney's 
office, or whatever, on an enforcement action. We know that in the real 
world 99 percent of the time whenever there is a difference between, 
say, a potential law enforcement officer and, in this case, a 
community, things get worked out; they get resolved in one way or 
another, and the actual action is not really filed.
  In those few instances where a community, for some reason, whatever 
reason, decides it does not want to comply with the standard--and there 
could be all kinds of reasons--and in those few instances where it 
decides it does not want to comply with a Federal standard, 
essentially, the EPA is precluded from enforcing it. Why? Because as I 
read this amendment, that community, subdivision, could say, well, 
there is not a total funding from Uncle Sam for this requirement; they 
are one penny short. Therefore, no enforcement action, none, zero. One 
penny short.
  How easily can a community find that it is one penny short? I submit 
pretty easily. There are all kinds of ways that attorneys are going to 
find ways to say, well, gee, there are dollars here for this, but not 
for that, because you did not include the indirect costs to this, or 
the administrative costs that we allocated for that. Our allocation 
says that the Federal requirement portion, the administrative cost, 
should be 10 percent, and you say it is less than 10 percent, but we 
say it is 10 percent. Litigate it. No enforcement action.
  On the other hand, the Senator is saying, well one penny, that is 
still a funded mandate. One penny short is still a funded mandate. If 
the Senator is saying that, then the question is: What is a sufficient 
Federal funding? Five percent short? Ten percent short? Who knows? That 
obviously raises a whole host of questions and even more litigation as 
to how much is enough. You cannot have it both ways. One penny short, 
which an attorney can find easily if he is worth his salt; or, gee, it 
is not substantially federally funded, and you get all these questions.
  Therefore, this is a gutting amendment. This amendment sounds 
beguiling and seductive, but if you look at the real, practical 
effect--the practical effect is no Federal enforcement of Safe Drinking 
Water Act standards where communities do not want to comply. That is 
what this amendment does.
  It is for those reasons and for the very simple reason that this is 
not a proper amendment. People want to be sure that the water they 
drink is pretty safe. There may be a reason why a community does not 
want to meet a standard. It has happened. There are cases where that 
happens.
  In a lot of these cases, the communities, frankly, want Uncle Sam to 
tell them to meet this standard because they can point the finger and 
blame Uncle Sam, or Washington, DC, or some regional office that they 
themselves do not have to bear the brunt of raising the standards and 
get the job done.
  Most communities, I am sure, want to do a good job. Most communities 
want safe drinking water. They all want safe drinking water. For some 
reason--Who knows?--they may not want to meet a standard.
  I might say that the standards in this bill are not overbearing. The 
standards in this bill, particularly regarding small systems, are 
reduced. The monitoring requirements are reduced. The dollars that we 
have provided to install new technologies to address contaminants are 
increased. There are more Federal dollars, many more Federal dollars.
  I remind Senators to look at the chart behind me. It is basically a 
fourteenfold increase, 14 times more, plus more flexibility. It was 
really more than this chart indicates, because Governors can transfer 
dollars from the clean water revolving to the safe drinking water 
revolving fund to meet system's needs.
  To sum up, I might say that this bill, is a good balance. It is a 
good balance between requirements, on the one hand, and reducing 
excessive burdens, on the other.
  This amendment dramatically upsets that balance. It does, I think, 
effectively prevent the United States from enforcing very reasonable 
provisions in the Safe Drinking Water Act which, in those communities, 
for one reason or another, do not want to comply, jeopardize the safety 
and the cleanliness of their water.
  I just think that it is not a provision; it is not an amendment that 
we in the U.S. Senate want to enact into law.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if we are going to get into the issue of 
hyperbole, because this appears to be the movement of this debate, let 
me simply point out all those folks who are listening in on Senators, 
everyone who has sponsored an unfunded mandates bill--and there is a 
majority in this body that has done exactly that--if you cannot vote 
for this very small toe-in-the-water type of an approach, this 
miniature movement, this baby step on the issue of unfunded mandates, 
then you really are going to have a lot of trouble going back to your 
States, going back to your towns, going back to those town meetings and 
explaining to the local officials when they ask you why do we 
constantly get these mandates, why do you tell us what to do with our 
taxes when we have other needs in our communities, why is it that when 
we need more police and we need to pay our teachers more we have to 
spend the money on something you told us to do from Washington that you 
are not willing to fund, you are going to have a lot of trouble saying 
to those folks: ``I am against unfunded mandates. I just was not able 
to vote for this little itsy-bitsy idea that came through the Senate on 
the drinking water bill.''
  So we are going to go to hyperbole that this is a gutting amendment, 
which it certainly is not for all the reasons which we outlined on this 
floor for the last hour and a half, that you have to deal with the fact 
that this amendment is really a very tentative attempt to address the 
issue in a fair way so the communities are not hit twice, first with 
the unfunded mandate and then with a fine.
  But if we are going to start using hyperbole, then I think people 
better look themselves in the mirror in this body and say why do I 
sponsor the unfunded mandates bill and why do I when I go back to my 
district and talk about how opposed I am to unfunded mandates when I am 
not even willing to vote for this one little simple idea, that small 
step on a bill which we already had outlined to us on numerous 
occasions is not an unfunded mandate anyway.
  It has no impact. It has virtually no compliance activity involved in 
it. So clearly it is not going to be affected by this abatement of the 
fine.
  The maximum fine collected was $70,000 only under this bill. So that 
is the maximum ever to get abated.
  So why are we so exercised about it. I do not know, because quite 
honestly this is not that significant a step on the issue which is the 
core issue which is how we get to unfunded mandates. As long as 
Congress continues to pass these unfunded mandates, we will continue to 
pervert the relationship between the Federal, the State and the local 
governments in this country. We will continue to undermine the 
confidence of local community leaders in our willingness to stand 
behind our words.
  That is the bigger issue of unfunded mandates which really has not 
been raised in this debate by me until this point but which I guess it 
has to be raised at this time because that is what the debate has 
become, the debate of hyperbole.
  So ask yourself if you are not willing to take this little step 
forward do not go back to towns and cities to the next town meetings or 
next Kiwanis Club or Rotary meeting or next Chamber of Commerce meeting 
or next community service meeting and when the question is asked about 
what about this unfunded mandate give a lecture on how much you are 
opposed to it because, believe me, you cannot be if you vote against 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment essentially creates a false 
choice. This amendment basically says either you are for funding the 
mandates or you are for sufficient Federal enforcement to the exclusion 
of the other but not for both, which is a false choice.
  Obviously, we in this U.S. Senate want to fund the mandates and we 
want sufficient enforcement of the provisions. Obviously, we want both. 
Obviously, the solution is to deal with those enforcement issues first 
and enforcement in the best, most reasonable way; second, deal with the 
mandates in the best, most reasonable way but not have a 100-percent 
linkage between the two. The 100-percent linkage in this amendment 
creates a false choice. It is either black or white. It is all or 
nothing.
  This amendment creates an all-or-nothing, very artificial, very 
constrained situation. Either we are for totally funding the mandates 
under this amendment or if we are not for totality in every case under 
this amendment we are not for Federal law enforcement.
  I do not think that is where the Senate wants to be. I do not think 
that is practically what the Senator from New Hampshire really wants 
either.
  I am confident that the Senator from New Hampshire would like to have 
these so-called mandates funded as well as possible, close to 100 
percent as possible. I think the Senator would also like to have good, 
sufficient Federal law enforcement as reasonable as possible. I am 
quite certain that the Senator from New Hampshire is not saying no 
Federal law enforcement whatsoever if there is not a total 100 percent 
fully funding of this requirement. I do not think he really means that. 
I dare say I do not think the people of New Hampshire really mean that 
either or want that.
  I think that the better way to deal with the question on the one hand 
of funding the mandates as in the committee chart behind me 
demonstrates that we can do better, we will work to do better over the 
months and years ahead and also we want to deal with the important 
level of law enforcement, but we do not want a 100 percent either or 
linkage where it is either all one or all the other but not some 
reasonable amount of both.
  The effect of this amendment is all or nothing. We do not want all or 
nothing in the United States. We want kind of a reasonable level of 
both. That is what we want. I think that once we focus on that all or 
nothing which is not the will, I am sure of the Senate, we will realize 
let us not adopt this amendment but let us deal with the funding 
question responsibly and properly and also deal with the enforcement.
  I note that the Senator from Ohio, the chairman of the Governmental 
Affairs Committee, is now in the Chamber, who worked hard on this 
question of unfounded mandates.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder, Mr. President, if we could have some kind of an 
understanding after the Senator from Ohio speaks. Would it be the floor 
manager's judgment that we stack the amendment of the Senator from New 
Hampshire and get on with the Senator from North Carolina? I think 
there are going to be several other amendments after him. As I 
understand, that is what the hope is.
  Is that agreeable with the Senator from New Hampshire?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I say it is better to dispose of this amendment as soon 
as we finish debating. I do not see any reason for postponing the 
actual vote.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Perhaps, after the Senator from Ohio finishes his statement, we will 
come pretty close to wrapping up this debate. It is about 20 before 5 
now. Maybe around 5 o'clock, I would contemplate a vote on this 
amendment, unless there is other intervening business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire brings up a very, very 
important problem that we are in the process of addressing in the 
Governmental Affairs Committee.
  This has been a subject that has been coming up increasingly over the 
last 3, maybe 4, years. It is a problem of when the Federal Government 
mandates something that costs the States in either enforcement or in 
procedures or what they have to do and it becomes very expensive.
  Now you pile one of these requirements on top of another, starting 
way back several decades ago, and pretty soon the States are really up 
against it, as far as being able to provide the funds to do what has to 
be done.
  I might add that this is one of the results of the so-called 
revolution we had in the difference in Federal-State relationships 
beginning back in the early 1980's, the so-called Reagan revolution. 
The idea was, if things were worth doing, we will send them back to the 
States and States will fund them if they are worth doing and we will 
get out of some of this business of the Federal Government requiring 
things of the States. That was all well and good, except we have the 
same requirements but not the funding from the Federal level to cover 
all these things, and back in those days we did cover a higher 
percentage than we do now.
  But, regardless of that political background, we have unfunded 
mandates as a requirement and it really is hitting the States and local 
communities hard, very, very hard.
  So I am complimentary to the Senator from New Hampshire for bringing 
it up, but I would submit that, rather than having something like this 
brought up on every piece of legislation that comes up--and we could do 
that--the way to solve this is the way we are going at it in the 
Governmental Affairs Committee.
  Let me tell you what we have done. We have some eight bills before 
the committee now, including one by Senator Gregg, the Senator from New 
Hampshire, who is a sponsor of this amendment. We started last fall 
addressing this particular problem and we have eight bills in 
committee. We had a hearing last November 3, at which Senator Gregg 
testified on one of the eight bills. Other Members of the Senate and 
Members of the House also testified before the committee.
  What we have been trying to do is work out a compromise position that 
would work for everyone. I think we are pretty well along on that.
  Senator Kempthorne has what was one of the more drastic proposals 
that just cut off everything, period; and that is if there was any cost 
at all. That is one extreme. And that would mean, even technically, I 
suppose, even if we asked for a report to come in and it required 
postage, that would be an unfunded Federal mandate. I do not think 
anyone wanted to take it that far, of course.
  But, nevertheless, we have been having hearings on this. We had one 
last fall. We had one hearing on April 28 of this year. Representatives 
of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, 
the National Governors Association, the National League of Cities, the 
U.S. Conference of State Legislatures, and Democratic and Republican 
elected officials have all testified, including several Senators, at 
these hearings.
  We have been working with Senator Kempthorne and with the 
administration. Senator Roth, the ranking minority member of the 
committee, and I have worked with them. We are in the process of 
working out comprehensive mandate reform legislation. We have that 
pretty well reasonably worked out. We are planning our markup on it, as 
a matter of fact, on May 26, just next week.
  There have been good faith negotiations underway with Senator 
Kempthorne and others and I feel substantial, very substantial, 
progress has been made. We have had discussions and negotiations.
  It seems to me that the way to solve this is by a comprehensive piece 
of legislation that we are about to mark up next week. Once that is 
done, we will bring it to the floor as fast as possible. I hope that it 
will cover this problem to the satisfaction not only of Members of this 
body, but also to all of those organizations that I mentioned.
  It is a real problem. It is one that I think the Senator from New 
Hampshire is absolutely correct in bringing up and keeping attention 
focused on this particular issue, because it is a very major problem.
  The States are out of money and do not feel that they can put taxes 
up in some of these areas where the Federal Government puts new 
requirements on them but does not follow with the money to carry out 
those programs. We heard over and over again in our committee during 
our last hearing with all of these different organizations that I 
mentioned, ``No money, no mandates.'' ``No money, no mandates.'' I, 
basically, agree with that. I am very sympathetic to that, but it can 
be carried to extremes.
  That would just stop Government in its tracks, if we pass some of the 
legislation that has been proposed, not particularly this legislation 
today. But some of the other proposals, if carried out right to the 
letter of the way they are written, it would literally stop Federal 
Government in its tracks, even for good programs that the States want. 
And so, I think we have to be careful that we do not do more harm than 
good.
  What I would hope is that Senator Gregg would either withdraw this 
amendment or, if we have a vote on it, I urge my colleagues to vote 
against it, with the idea that we are coming up with legislation that I 
think will be satisfactory and I think most of the Members of this body 
will approve. We should have that marked up and ready to come to the 
floor after our markup that is scheduled on May 26.
  I hate to oppose this amendment, because I know that we do have to 
deal with the unfunded mandate problem. We are not trying to put that 
off. I am not trying to delay it. I think, through the years, we should 
have moved ahead more rapidly in dealing with this, because it has been 
a problem that has been growing very, very rapidly in our communities 
and in our States.
  So we want to deal with it, but I want to deal with it by bringing 
out legislation that applies to unfunded mandates across the board.
  With that, I hate to oppose this amendment, but I will oppose it and 
urge my colleagues to vote against it if it is brought up to a vote. It 
is something we do have to deal with. I want to deal with it in a 
better way that will deal with the whole unfunded mandate problem.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Are we ready to vote?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Soon.
  Mr. President, due to business of other Senators at this moment, I 
think it would be inappropriate to vote on this amendment precisely at 
this time.
  I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that a vote on or in relation to 
the Gregg amendment occur at 5:30 today, and that no second-degree 
amendments be in order prior to disposition of this amendment numbered 
1712.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator 
Faircloth will go ahead now and it may well be that he will have his 
amendment concluded with by 5:30.
  Suppose he is not through, then what happens? He is just interrupted?
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, when the 
vote occurs on the Gregg amendment, I be allowed to move to table and 
the yeas and nays be ordered.
  I withdraw that request.
  Mr. President, I suggested absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I think we have pretty well wrapped up 
debate on the amendment offered by the Senator from New Hampshire.
  Before turning to the next amendment, I ask unanimous consent to have 
a letter printed in the Record. It is a letter from Bob Perciasepe, the 
Assistant Administrator of the EPA. Essentially the letter states that 
he, Mr. Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Water in the 
Environmental Protection Agency, is deeply concerned about the 
amendment offered by Senator Gregg. He says it would upset the careful 
balance the committee has drafted. It would severely hamper enforcement 
of the Safe Drinking Water Act and could bring progress on drinking 
water protection to a grinding halt. Drinking water systems across the 
country would no longer be held responsible for providing basic 
drinking water safeguards, such as protection against microbiological 
contaminants and lead.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Max Baucus,

     Chairman, Committee on the Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
                                           Senate, Washington, DC.

       Dear Senator Baucus: The Safe Drinking Water Act bill, S. 
     2019, which passed the Committee on the Environment and 
     Public Works by a unanimous vote, contain much needed reforms 
     to reduce regulatory burdens and increase flexibility while 
     carefully balancing essential public health protections.
       I am deeply concerned by an amendment offered by Senator 
     Gregg that would upset the careful balance that you and the 
     Committee have crafted. The amendment would severely hamper 
     enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act and could bring 
     progress in drinking water protection to a grinding halt. 
     Drinking water systems across the country would no longer be 
     held responsible for providing basic drinking water 
     safeguards, such as protection against microbiological 
     contaminants and lead.
       According to industry data, 74 percent of water consumers 
     are willing to pay higher water bills in order to receive 
     water above federal standards. This amendment could undercut 
     the substantial progress that has been made to meet the goal 
     of safe drinking water for all Americans. I strongly urge you 
     to oppose the amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                Robert Perciasepe,
                                          Assistant Administrator.


                           amendment no. 1714

    (Purpose: To strike the provisions relating to labor standards)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment to the 
safe drinking water bill that will strike the Davis-Bacon prevailing 
wage requirements for construction of drinking water treatment plants 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth] for 
     himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Brown, Mr. Smith, Mr. 
     Grassley, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Helms, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Coats, 
     Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Kempthorne proposes an amendment numbered 
     1714.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Beginning on page 22, strike line 12 and all that follows 
     through page 23, line 8.
       On page 23, line 10, strike ``1478'' and insert ``1477''.
       On page 23, line 23, strike ``1479'' and insert ``1478''.
       On page 118, line 11, strike ``1479'' and insert ``1478''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I have spent the last 46 years in the 
private sector. I have met a payroll every Friday for every week of 
those years and with a little luck will meet one this Friday. It is 
unfortunate for the American people that there are not more 
representatives who know what it means to run a business. If there 
were, we would have repealed the union-inspired mandates like Davis-
Bacon long ago.
  It is time we agreed to an amendment like the one before us. We need 
to send the cities and towns a clear message that the Congress is no 
longer going to burden them with unfunded Federal mandates like Davis-
Bacon. And certainly it is time to let the taxpayers know that Congress 
is no longer willing to waste their money on union mandates.
  Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements are a drain on the taxpayer, 
the private sector, the job market, the towns and, in this bill, the 
environment. The only beneficiaries of Davis-Bacon are Big Labor and 
its allies in the Congress. Obviously, Federal prevailing wage laws are 
a bad idea whose time will never come.
  Do not misunderstand. As any union boss will tell you, Davis-Bacon is 
a successful labor law. It does exactly what it is supposed to do; it 
drives labor costs above the market price and excludes low-skilled, 
entry-level workers from the job market and eliminates any potential 
for apprentice training. It is big labor's best friend. It is the 
taxpayers' worst enemy.
  Let us take a look at who gains and who loses by continuing to 
mandate wages on Federal projects. First, the taxpayer loses. Most of 
us are familiar with the studies that, according to the GAO, as anyone 
who has ever run a construction company, as I have, knows, the cost of 
Federal-funded construction is driven up by anywhere from 5 to 15 
percent as a result of Davis-Bacon.
  The effect is even worse in rural areas where Davis-Bacon drives the 
cost up by 26 to 35 percent.
  The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the most conservative 
estimate available for the premium the taxpayers pay because of Davis-
Bacon. They say the costs rise 1.5 percent because of the act. But from 
that very low and conservative estimate, it is determined that the 
taxpayer is expected to fork over an additional $3.2 billion over the 
next 5 years because of Davis-Bacon. And in this bill alone, we would 
save $84 million, and that is also a low ball estimate.
  Mr. President, we could argue about the minutiae of studies well into 
the night, but no one in this Chamber will argue that Davis-Bacon is 
saving the taxpayers any money. It drives up cost, reduces competition, 
pure and simple. That is what it is designed to do, and it does not 
improve the quality of the finished product.
  By mandating that federally funded construction projects pay the 
prevailing or union wage--and they will always be able to identify as 
the prevailing wage--we drive up the labor costs to the taxpayers--the 
labor cost--by 50 percent on federally funded projects, and that does 
not even take into account the massive amounts of paperwork, the 
bureaucracy created in the Department of Labor to administer and 
determine prevailing wages for the thousands of Federal contracts let 
each year. It is estimated that over 6 percent of paperwork generated 
at the Department of Labor is a result of Davis-Bacon--6 percent of the 
paperwork coming out of the Department of Labor. And every bit of it is 
a useless, bureaucratic waste of time and money.
  Mr. President, it is impossible for the Department of Labor or anyone 
in Government, for that matter, to accurately determine what someone's 
proper wage is. Only the private sector and the free market can 
determine what is a proper wage.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Might I interrupt the Senator at an appropriate point to 
get a consent agreement? I do not want to break into the flow of the 
Senator's presentation.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Excuse me.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask what would be a proper time for me to put a 
separate request to the Senate allocating time?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I am almost through. It will be all right to divide 
the time.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
between now and 5:30 p.m. be equally divided in the usual form for 
debate on the Faircloth amendment; and that, following disposition of 
Senator Gregg's amendment, the Senate vote on or in relation to Senator 
Faircloth's amendment No. 1714; and that no other amendments be in 
order prior to disposition of Senator Faircloth's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kohl). Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, the private sector and the free market 
are the only factors that can determine what is a proper wage. 
Governments around the world have discovered the futility and waste 
associated with manipulating wages and markets. It simply has never 
worked. Yet, the U.S. Congress today and every year since 1931 has 
mandated that the Department of Labor somehow determine the proper wage 
that should be paid for 300 different job categories in 20,000 
different locations around the country. Every bricklayer, backhoe 
operator, carpenter, electrician and post-hole digger has to get a 
correct Federal unionized wage.
  This wage is to be determined not by the real market but by the 
bureaucrats in Washington. That, Mr. President, is an impossible task. 
Everyone knows the Labor Department cannot possibly do the job, and for 
the past 63 years, the prevailing wage has been one thing and one thing 
only: the union wage. That is why in places like Cody, WY, they use a 
Denver pay scale, and in Poplar Bluff, MO, they use St. Louis union pay 
scales. This goes on all over the country.
  Anyone with a drop of common sense knows there is not any connection 
between the selected wage and the true local market wage. The local 
market is really of no consequence. The union wage simply prevails and 
the Davis-Bacon wage goes on.
  The second loser is the private sector. The cost to the private 
sector in lost competition is enormous. I was in the construction 
business for many years, and I can tell you firsthand the consequence 
of the Federal Government mandating wage rates.
  We have created two separate construction markets in this country. 
The Federal market, whose foundation is Davis-Bacon wage mandates, is a 
maze of union-inspired rules and regulations. To compete in this 
market, you and your workers have to play by the union rules or, even 
worse, you can very simply just sign your company away to union 
contracts in the first place. And we all know what that means: Changing 
a ditch digger's rate to that of a truck driver because he drove a 
truck across a parking lot, or an electrician scale because he threaded 
a piece of wire. Those are the rules that Davis-Bacon brings to the 
construction industry.
  That kind of Government-created private sector bureaucracy has 
limited the Federal construction market, for the most part, to a small 
group of union-controlled contractors who specialize in Davis-Bacon 
mandates. They are not competitive enough to operate in the free 
enterprise system. They do nothing but Government work under the Davis-
Bacon rules.
  Mr. President, Davis-Bacon mandates will cost the private sector $100 
million this year in paperwork alone. Eleven million payroll reports, 
requiring 5\1/2\ million man-hours, will be submitted by employers to 
the Department of Labor in order to conform to Davis-Bacon 
requirements--11 million payroll reports.
  The requirements that payrolls be met weekly rather than biweekly, as 
is often the practice in the construction industry, is enough to 
discourage any smaller firm from competing for Federal contracts. Just 
a single payroll requirement is symbolic of the arrogance of Davis-
Bacon and the bureaucracy and the unions that support it.
  It is not Congress' business to mandate the private sector's payroll 
changes that are effective for them only because the union bosses 
decide they would like it differently. I hope Senators who support 
Davis-Bacon will put themselves in the shoes of employers who are 
willing to hire entry-level workers but can find no economic rationale 
in the face of Davis-Bacon. I think there is a simple reason and an 
unfortunate reason why they cannot. The vast majority of Senators' 
hiring decisions have been limited to staffers, bureaucrats and law 
clerks. They simply have no firsthand knowledge of the private sector 
and the counterproductive effects of the rules and regulations that 
this Congress has passed over the last 30 years and longer.
  The final loser is the cities and towns who are trying to clean up 
their drinking water. This bill currently marks an unprecedented 
expansion of the privileged wage laws of Davis-Bacon. We usually think 
of Davis-Bacon in connection with Federal building projects, but this 
bill is about local projects and it tells cities and towns that, if 
they take a penny of money from the State revolving fund, they must 
follow Davis-Bacon and Federal wage laws. That becomes one more mandate 
upon the cities and counties of this country, an unfunded one, as most 
of the Federal mandates are.
  If we want to get the whole purpose of the bill, if we really want 
cleaner water, then we are going at it the wrong way. We need cheaper 
costs, and eliminating Davis-Bacon would be one way to cheapen the 
cost.
  Mr. President, the Davis-Bacon issue has been fought many times in 
the Senate and will, unfortunately, be fought many times again, and I 
am well aware of that. But Senators have an opportunity here to prevent 
Davis-Bacon from being forced upon what is essentially a State program. 
This bill makes available $5.6 billion for States to loan out as they 
see fit, with a 20-percent match into this revolving fund. It is not 
the business of Congress to say that States--and that is what they 
are--that all of this must be constructed using union funds. I believe 
the States and cities have had enough of unfunded mandates, and I think 
they have had enough of Davis-Bacon, particularly those States without 
prevailing wage laws. It is one more encroachment on the ability of 
governments outside of Washington to decide such things for themselves. 
They have lost the decisionmaking process. It is dictated to them by a 
Government bureaucracy from Washington.
  It is another power grab by Big Labor. It is one more arrogant 
attempt by Congress to manipulate the private sector for its own 
benefit and reasons.
  I propose that Senators who may be undecided this time do the right 
thing. Let us get the Davis-Bacon monkey off the back of local 
governments and the private sector. Vote for this amendment and your 
State will get 30 percent more water treatment construction for its 
money in rural areas. Vote against it and you are saying that Big Labor 
is more important to you, more a factor than is clean drinking water 
for this Nation.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Faircloth 
amendment to S. 2019, the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments.
  As reported, section 3 of the bill would add a part G--sections 1471-
1479--to the Safe Drinking Water Act, requiring the EPA Administrator 
to make grants to States for capitalizing State revolving loan funds 
[SRF's] to finance facilities for the treatment of drinking water. This 
new grant program is modeled after a similar one created in the Clean 
Water Act.
  Unfortunately, the new section 1477(a) in the bill would apply the 
requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 to the SRF's. Because 
Davis-Bacon directly applies only to public works and public buildings, 
it would not apply to SRF's without such an explicit extension.
  Davis-Bacon should not apply to SRF's; it would amount to another 
Federal mandate on the States:
  Davis-Bacon is a standard for Federal procurement contracts for 
construction--it shouldn't be imposed on State and local decisionmaking 
about State and local needs and priorities.
  The Davis-Bacon provision in S. 2019 is another example of the 
Federal Government giving with one hand and taking away with the other. 
The bill says that we'll help pay for some of the capital costs of 
Federal drinking water mandates. But then we add Davis-Bacon to make 
capital improvements more expensive, more regulated, and more 
paperwork-intensive.
  Because this bill applies Davis-Bacon to projects with any Federal 
SRF money, it also applies Davis-Bacon to the matching funds raised by 
State, local, and private sources. In other words, the Federal 
Government would be dictating to States and others how they should 
spend their own money. This simply isn't fair.
  This provision also provides us with a case of the tail wagging the 
dog. Even though the Federal share of any SRF project may be as great 
as 80 percent, States also may stretch that money out among more 
projects. In some cases, Davis-Bacon could wind up applying to projects 
with a very small Federal component.
  The new section 1477 created by this bill includes a disturbing, 
unprecedented expansion of Davis-Bacon to the proceeds of loan 
repayments:
  The purpose of this bill is to authorize seed money to set up 
revolving loan funds--and I stress the word ``revolving.'' The loans 
are repaid and funds are reloaned. The current practice as in the Clean 
Water Act, has been to apply Davis-Bacon only to the initial pool of 
money receiving a Federal contribution. If Davis-Bacon has to apply, 
this should be the case--it should come attached directly and solely to 
Federal money.
  Over time, revolving funds become State money even more obviously. 
The Federal taint is less and less.
  However, this bill could apply Davis-Bacon to subsequent loans made 
out of revolving funds 5, 10, and 20 years after the Federal Government 
has stopped contributing any funds.
  Revolving funds are administered by State agencies, are matched with 
State funds, and loaned out based on State and local assessments of 
need. If this is the best way to characterize SRF's at their creation, 
it is a much truer description still after funds are repaid and 
reloaned.
  Another obvious indicator of the nature of SRF's as State funds is 
written right into this bill: States would be allowed to decide whether 
or not to forgive loans to disadvantaged communities. It doesn't make 
sense to apply a Federal procurement standard like Davis-Bacon to a 
subsequent loan that was made possible solely because the State 
collected loan repayment it could have forgiven, instead.
  Applying Davis-Bacon to SRF's is inconsistent with the stated intent 
of the Davis-Bacon Act itself:
  Davis-Bacon supporters always assert that the purpose of the act--and 
this is consistent with legislative history--is to protect local 
economies and markets from disruption by big Federal projects.
  Applying the act to SRF's raises a logical contradiction: This bill 
would apply a Federal procurement rule to State and local projects, 
ignoring the needs, priorities, and standards of the States and 
localities, in the name of ``protecting'' those States and localities 
from Federal interference.
  Another, little noticed, local control issue: Subsection (b) of the 
Davis-Bacon provision would allow the Labor Department to override the 
judgments of EPA and State and local officials on when to apply Davis-
Bacon:
  Subsection (b) of the new section 1477 would allow the Department of 
Labor to override determinations made by the EPA Administrator and 
State or local officials as to whether the nature of the work being 
performed or the nature of a contractual relationship on an SRF project 
was such that Davis-Bacon should not apply. This is a departure from 
the traditional legislative approach in, and division of responsibility 
under, the Davis-Bacon related acts.
  There is no justification for allowing Department of Labor 
bureaucrats who have no practical experience in safe drinking water 
programs, and who know nothing about local economic circumstances, to 
impose their judgment on EPA and local officials who are more qualified 
and better situated to judge the nature and scope of a contract on a 
project funded out of an SRF.
  Proponents of Davis-Bacon expansion have been pursuing a strategy of 
inflicting death by a thousand small cuts. Subsection (b) is another 
example; it is a provision that has no rationale as a piecemeal 
expansion except for the sake of expansion itself.
  There actually is an interesting history behind this particular 
issue. In the mid-1980's, DOL actually tried to apply Davis-Bacon to 
private construction of a shopping center in Muskogie, OK. The city, in 
a private-public partnership, had used a Federal grant to pay for part 
of the land acquisition. In essence, the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development said that Davis-Bacon applied only to federally 
financed construction in this and similar cases. DOL argued that it had 
the authority to apply Davis-Bacon to private construction if Federal 
funds had helped pay for an indirectly related activity. The Justice 
Department ruled in favor of HUD. Subsection (b) attempts to overturn 
that ruling for drinking water SRF's.
  As an example of how such a reversal would affect communities under 
this bill, let's say a private developer of an industrial park or 
planned community agrees to construct a drinking water treatment 
facility; and the local government uses SRF funds for technical 
assistance, or maybe partial land acquisition. Normally, EPA and the 
State and locality would determine whether Federal money was directly 
related to construction and whether the nature of the work was more 
properly considered private, local-public, or federally assisted. 
Subsection (b) is intended to give bureaucrats, remote from the actual 
community and its SRF project, the power to superimpose their opinions 
as to when Davis-Bacon should apply.


                                 costs

  The bill authorizes $600 million in fiscal year 1994 and $1 billion 
annually over fiscal years 1995-2000, for a total of $6.6 billion.
  Davis-Bacon would escalate total construction costs by at least 1.5 
percent, or $99 million of the total Federal contribution if that much 
is appropriated. In other words, the Federal Government would get $99 
million less worth of safe water capital improvements--less safe 
drinking water--for its money.
  The committee report estimates that total capital costs to comply 
with Federal standards could be $8 billion or more. Of this total, the 
Davis-Bacon cost premium would amount to at least $120 million--
including at least $21 million in added costs imposed on States and 
localities.
  I want to point out that 1.5 percent is what CBO estimates Davis-
Bacon adds to construction costs, as a national average, above what 
they would be if the market prevailed.
  The local impacts of Davis-Bacon, however, vary dramatically.
  The General Accounting Office, the Wharton School, the Grace 
Commission, and others have found that Davis-Bacon commonly adds 5 to 
15 percent to construction costs.
  A 1982 University of Oregon study found that Davis-Bacon increases 
costs in rural areas by as much as 26 to 38 percent.
  It's ironic and unfortunate: Applying Davis-Bacon to the safe 
drinking water SRF's means that those communities already least able to 
afford Federal mandates in the first place would get socked with the 
largest additional, federally imposed costs in complying with those 
mandates.
  Davis-Bacon restricts competition and discriminates against small and 
minority-owned businesses:
  Small and minority contractors already avoid Federal construction 
contracts like the plague because of onerous Davis-Bacon requirements. 
This bill would ensure that the same contractors are also shut out of 
State and local drinking water projects.
  Again, this is ironic. Members of Congress always talk about helping 
small and minority employers--the very employers who create virtually 
all new jobs and training opportunities for new and disadvantaged 
workers--but by applying Davis-Bacon this bill would slam another door 
in their faces.
  I remind my colleagues: The National Association of Minority 
Contractors has said that Davis-Bacon is ``poison'' to minority 
contractors and their employees, and the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of 
Commerce has called for outright repeal of the act.
  I have spoken before on this floor about the lawsuit now pending, by 
several minority contractors, community associations, and the Institute 
for Justice, to declare Davis-Bacon unconstitutional on the basis of 
racial discrimination. I await with great interest the developments in 
that case. In the meanwhile, I agree that the 1931 Congressional Record 
showed obvious discriminatory intent when Davis-Bacon was enacted and 
that history has shown discriminatory effects.
  For these reasons, and for those I offered earlier, I urge my 
colleagues to vote for the Faircloth amendment. We should not be 
expanding Davis-Bacon coverage still further.
  If the Faircloth amendment is not adopted, then I urge that Senators 
adopt the amendment by Senator Gregg of New Hampshire, which would 
restore the status quo that Davis-Bacon not apply to the proceeds of 
loan repayments. But I hope that is not necessary and that we adopt the 
Faircloth amendment. If neither of those amendments is adopted, I 
understand that Senator Simpson of Wyoming has an amendment to allow 
States to exempt disadvantaged communities from Davis-Bacon, and I will 
support that effort.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to insert 
additional materials into the Record with my statement, including a 
letter from the National Association of Minority Contractors expressing 
their concern over and opposition to the Davis-Bacon provisions in S. 
1547, which has been replaced on the floor by S. 2019, and a letter 
from the Coalition To Reform Davis-Bacon, a broad-based national 
coalition.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           National Association of


                                         Minority Contractors,

                                   Washington, DC, April 25, 1994.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: The National Association of Minority 
     Contractors (NAMC) would like to draw your attention to an 
     overbearing Davis-Bacon provision in the Safe Drinking Water 
     Reauthorization Act (S. 1547), a bill which will soon be 
     considered in the Senate. We urge you to oppose this 
     provision on the grounds of its overly burdensome requirement 
     on the states, as well as its heavily adverse impact on small 
     and small disadvantaged businesses, and lower-skilled 
     minority workers.
       S. 1547 contains a provision which would expand Davis-Bacon 
     coverage to all drinking water projects funded by the new 
     state revolving loan fund (SRF) created in the bill. This 
     Davis-Bacon provision of S. 1547 amounts to just one more 
     unfunded federal mandate on the states. It would have a harsh 
     impact on small and small disadvantaged businesses who would 
     be virtually eliminated from competing on drinking water 
     projects because of the heavy burden of Davis-Bacon. It would 
     also have a negative impact on low-skilled workers seeking 
     jobs on safe drinking water projects, but not qualifying for 
     the excessive Davis-Bacon wage requirements.
       Under the legislation, the federal government would 
     contribute a total of $5.6 billion to the SRF through the 
     year 2000. After 2000, the SRF would be capitalized solely by 
     repayments of the loan by the states. The Davis-Bacon 
     provision would apply the law's requirements not only for the 
     first few years of the program, when the federal government 
     is making a financial contribution, but also when the SRF is 
     fully capitalized with state funds. The language contained in 
     S. 1547 is a significant unprecedented expansion of the 
     Davis-Bacon Act which eventually places the full burden of 
     the associated inflated costs on the states.
       The Davis-Bacon Act is estimated to raise the cost of 
     federal construction by an average of 5-15%. The inflated 
     costs in rural areas are estimated at 26-38%. The Davis-Bacon 
     Act currently impacts states and localities because it is 
     often applied when the federal government makes only a 
     nominal contribution and the project is primarily state, 
     locally or privately funded. The inflated costs and other 
     problems associated with Davis-Bacon can virtually nullify 
     the federal government's subsidy. The language in S. 1547 
     imposes this type of burden on the states, but also goes a 
     giant step further by applying Davis-Bacon indefinitely--even 
     when the SRF is capitalized solely with state funds.
       S. 1547 purports to provide additional flexibility to the 
     states. However, the Davis-Bacon provision in this 
     legislation is entirely contrary to this intent. To date, 
     eighteen states have chosen to either repeal their 
     ``little Davis-Bacon law'' or have no prevailing wage 
     statute at all. Rather than providing flexibility, S. 1547 
     as written imposes another unfunded federal mandate on 
     states who have already made their choice on this issue. 
     States who have repealed their prevailing wage law--
     including Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, 
     Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire and Utah--and states who 
     have never had a prevailing wage law--including Georgia, 
     Iowa, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, South 
     Dakota, Vermont and Virginia--clearly do not want the 
     federal government mandating that they must pay these 
     unnecessarily inflated costs. It is important to note that 
     states who do have a prevailing wage statue are already 
     assured of having prevailing wages paid on projects funded 
     under this program.
       NAMC urges you to support the position that, with states 
     and localities becoming increasingly financially strapped, 
     the federal government should not mandate that they pay more 
     than necessary for much-needed public construction. This 
     position is not only good for the state governments, but also 
     for small and small disadvantaged businesses seeking to do 
     business under state contracts, and also for workers seeking 
     jobs on state projects. We urge you to oppose the addition of 
     the Davis-Bacon expansion provision to S. 1547, the Safe 
     Drinking Water Authorization Act.
           Sincerely,
                                         Samuel A. Carradine, Jr.,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                           Coalition To Reform the


                                              Davis-Bacon Act,

                                                   April 11, 1994.
     Hon. Larry E. Craig,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Craig: The Senate is expected to begin debate 
     on S. 1547, the Safe Drinking Water Reauthorization Act, as 
     early as this week. The Coalition to Reform the Davis-Bacon 
     Act is extremely concerned about the Davis-Bacon provision 
     included in S. 1547, which would amount to an unfunded 
     federal mandate on the states.
       By including the requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act within 
     S. 1547, you are mandating that states pay a significant 
     amount more than necessary for construction projects under 
     these programs. The Davis-Bacon Act unnecessarily raises the 
     cost of Federal construction by an average of 5-15%, with 
     costs in rural areas being inflated by as much as 26-38%. 
     This is a needless waste of taxpayer dollars and thwarts the 
     progress of additional projects that would be built. These 
     figures do not take into account the burden that Davis-Bacon 
     requirements impose on states and localities.
       The federal Davis-Bacon law hurts states and localities 
     because its requirements are imposed regardless of the amount 
     of funds that the federal government brings to a project. For 
     example, the federal government could offer a small amount of 
     money for a primarily state, local or privately funded 
     project, and the artificially inflated Davis-Bacon wage rate 
     would have to be paid to all workers on that job. Often times 
     these increased costs virtually nullify the federal 
     contribution. The language in S. 1547 would further burden 
     states by applying Davis-Bacon requirements even when the 
     federal government stops making its contribution and the SRF 
     is solely state capitalized.
       Eighteen states have seen fit to repeal their state 
     prevailing wage statute or have no prevailing wage statute at 
     all, The federal government should not impose Davis-Bacon 
     requirements on financially strapped state and local 
     governments, particularly when it is no longer financially 
     involved.
       The Coalition to Reform the Davis-Bacon Act strongly 
     encourages you to delete this expansive language from S. 
     1547.
           Sincerely,
                                       The Coalition To Reform the
     Davis-Bacon Act.
                                  ____


            Members--Coalition To Reform the Davis-Bacon Act

       Air Conditioning Contractors of America.
       American Concrete Pipe Association.
       American Farm Bureau.
       American Portland Cement Alliance.
       American Public Transit Association.
       American Road and Transportation Builders Association.
       Associated Builders and Contractors.
       Associated General Contractors.
       Brick Institute.
       Citizens Against Government Waste.
       Contract Services Association.
       Council of State Community Development Agencies.
       Fluor Corporation.
       Independent Electrical Contractors, Inc.
       Institute for Justice.
       Labor Policy Association.
       National Aggregates Association.
       National Association of Counties.
       National Association of Dredging Contractors.
       National Association of Home Builders.
       National Association of Manufacturers.
       National Association of Minority Contractors.
       National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise.
       National Federation of Independent Business.
       National Industrial Sand Association.
       National League of Cities.
       National Terrazzo & Mosaic Association.
       National School Boards Association.
       National Slag Association.
       National Stone Association.
       National Tax Limitation Committee.
       National Taxpayers Union.
       Printing Industries of America.
       Pubic Service Research Council.
       U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

  Mr. WOFFORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, [Mr. Wofford].
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am about to yield time to the Senator 
from Pennsylvania and also the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The amendment, I think, is the same one that was offered in 
committee, was considered by the committee, and rejected by the 
committee. It is the same amendment, and I urge the full Senate to also 
reject it. It is an issue that has been debated many times. Frankly, I 
think it would be highly improper for the Senate to adopt this 
amendment.
  I will yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania--how much time?
  Mr. WOFFORD. I will be within 2 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. WOFFORD. Mr. President, as the Senator from Montana, our 
chairman, has said, the Environment and Public Works Committee debated 
this provision and voted by an 11 to 6 margin to retain the Davis-Bacon 
provisions.
  The points made with such strong conviction by the Senator from North 
Carolina have been disputed and, I believe, disproved by many studies 
and by many thoughtful students of this field.
  Dr. John Dunlop, Labor Secretary during the Ford administration, has 
studied the impact of the Davis-Bacon Act on costs and found that the 
application of the act is neutral with respect to construction costs.
  Before coming to the Senate, I was Pennsylvania's Secretary of Labor, 
an agency which administered the State's prevailing wage law. I have 
seen first hand how these labor protections assure fair wages 
prevailing in the locality of the work. They provide for apprenticeship 
training to create a new generation of skilled craftsmen. The men and 
women of the building trades, Mr. President, are taxpayers, and they 
have been building America. The Senate time and time again has 
supported the concept of prevailing wage, and I urge the defeat of this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
  I rise in opposition to this motion to strike the Davis-Bacon 
protections for projects funded under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  There are a number of myths that are frequently circulated about the 
Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements.
  Let me dispel some of the myths about Davis-Bacon.
  One of these myths is that Davis-Bacon requires contractors to pay 
union wages on Federal construction projects. Davis-Bacon requires that 
prevailing wages of the community be paid on Federal construction 
projects. A 1986 study of the entire universe of Davis-Bacon decisions 
revealed that only 42.6 percent of all area wage decisions had 
prevailing rates that were union rates.
  The same study found that almost 48 percent of all area wage 
decisions issued by the Department of Labor had nonunion wage rates as 
prevailing.
  It also found with regard to project decisions, 23 percent of all 
decisions had union rates prevailing while 62 percent had nonunion 
rates prevailing.
  Clearly, Davis-Bacon is not merely a facade to protect union wage 
rates.
  Another of those myths is that construction workers are overpaid, and 
that the Davis-Bacon Act requires that they be paid inflated wages that 
unfairly enrich these workers at the expense of taxpayers.
  This is simply untrue. The Davis-Bacon Act merely requires that 
construction workers on Federal projects be paid prevailing wage--that 
is the wage that is paid to the majority of workers doing similar work 
in the community.
  Construction workers are not overpaid. In fact, in March 1994, the 
average hourly wage of a construction worker in this country was $14.42 
an hour. Because construction workers work on a project-by-project 
basis, and are affected by weather and other conditions, the typical 
construction worker--even in the best of times--is likely to find work 
only about 1,400 to 1,600 hours a year. At the rate of $14.42 an hour, 
that typical construction worker produces annual earnings ranging from 
$20,188 to $23,072 a year.
  This is hardly the kind of income that any family lives royally on.
  And these are hardly the best of times for construction workers. In 
1993 the unemployment rate among construction workers nationwide was a 
whopping 14.3 percent, and I know for a fact that in some construction 
locals in my own State of Massachusetts the unemployment rate in 1993 
has been in excess of 17 percent.
  Mr. President, what we are basically talking about is the wages of 
working men and women in the construction industry of this country. 
When you get right down to it, let us look at those who are 
participating in the Davis-Bacon Program, which effectively means that 
the wages are going to be the prevailing wages in that particular area 
where the project is going to be built.
  Nationwide, the average construction worker is making $14.42 per 
hour, working between 1,400 and 1,600 hours a year. Construction 
workers only work on a project-by-project basis. Their hours are also 
affected because of weather. But, the typical construction worker 
nationwide, earns between $20,000 and $23,000 a year.
  We are talking about men and women in this country who have a skill 
who are making between $20,000 and $23,000 a year. We are talking about 
roofers who make $12.79 an hour; carpenters who make $14.33 an hour, 
and plumbing, heating, and air conditioner workers who make $15.01 an 
hour. I do not understand why the Senator is against these working men 
and women who are prepared to work at any time they possibly can and 
still make only $20,000 a year. There are a lot of other inequities out 
here--people taking advantage of various kinds of projects and systems 
and the economy, who are making not only $20,000 but $100,000 or $1 
million a year. But we are not talking about these people.
  It is thee the working men and women we are talking about. Their 
unemployment--as a result of interest rates--is 14 percent nationwide; 
in my State, 17 percent. Many of these construction workers are not 
even making the $20,000 a year. So you can talk all you like about how 
we really ought to stand up for America, how we ought to stand up 
against the power of these working men and women. You are talking about 
hard-working men and women who are trying to deal with the economic 
problems they and their families are facing, whose real income has 
actually declined over the period of the last 10 years. And we are 
going to say this is striking the cause for justice in America?

  Come on. What has the Senator got against working men and women 
making $20,000 a year? That is what this issue is about. I just hope 
that the Senator's amendment will be defeated.
  We can end up with the shoddy workmanship and the overtime that is 
necessary for repair when we do not have trained individuals who are 
part of the construction trades. A January 27, 1994 article in the Wall 
Street Journal recently reported on the growing shortage of skilled 
construction workers. The article mentions increasing complaints about 
building quality and timeliness.
  The protections of Davis-Bacon and the apprenticeship programs 
certified by the Department of Labor or a State agency recognized by 
the Department of Labor help to ensure that this country has an 
adequate skilled labor supply. They also ensure that projects built 
with Federal funds are quality projects with good workmanship.
  I am just always amazed that some of our colleagues want to go after 
the backbone of America--the skilled men and women who are really 
building the infrastructure, the ones who are rebuilding the water 
systems which provide our families water, the ones making moderate, 
even minimal, amounts of money and trying to bring up a family in this 
country at the present time.
  I hope that we are not going to turn our back on these individuals 
and say, well, we are not going to pay you. We are going to nickel and 
dime you. We want you to go out and work, but we are going to nickel 
and dime you and get your wages down even lower than they are now.
  Mr. President, $14,800 a year is now a poverty wage for families of 
four. These workers deserve better than a poverty wage. It seems to me 
we ought to pay people a living wage--for them and their families.
  So I hope that this amendment will be defeated, and I yield the 
remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Four minutes 35 seconds 
remain to the Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I yield the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the amendment 
offered by my good friend from North Carolina, Senator Faircloth. His 
amendment would strike the ill-advised Davis-Bacon provisions from the 
Safe Drinking Water Act.
  Most Americans are not aware of Davis-Bacon--but they should be. 
Davis-Bacon denies American taxpayers the right to get the best deal 
for their money. Davis-Bacon denies American taxpayers the benefits of 
marketplace competition. Congress--not the marketplace--not 
competition--sets the rate of pay for workers.
  The result? Federal contract costs sky-rocket. Taxpayers are gouged. 
And now, if we defeat the Faircloth amendment, we will expand Davis-
Bacon even further?
  If the Faircloth amendment is defeated, Government contract costs 
will increase along with Government spending. Is the budget balanced? 
Have we conquered the deficit?
  What is our objective with the Safe Drinking Water bill? Do we want 
money spent on protecting drinking water? Or do we want to throw a 
bone--a very expensive bone--to special interests?
  If my colleagues defeat the Faircloth amendment, less money will go 
to safe drinking water. More money will go to labor.
  The bill contributes $5.6 billion to a new State revolving loan fund. 
It is argued States are better suited to manage local safe drinking 
projects. But then we about-face and force costly Davis-Bacon 
requirements upon State contributions to the new revolving fund. The 
Federal Government imposes costly Davis-Bacon long after Federal funds 
are spent. Why? To promote safe drinking water?
  My own State of Iowa has never had a prevailing wage law similar to 
Davis-Bacon. But unlike the Federal Government, Iowa has to balance its 
budget. It is required by Iowa's constitution. So, squandering 
taxpayer's money like the Federal Government does is not acceptable 
among many States like Iowa.
  Therefore, I am confident that Iowa would oppose paying the inflated 
costs this unprecedented Federal mandate imposes.
  This is both a Federal money grab and a Federal power grab. It steals 
more money from Federal and State taxpayers. And it steals the power 
from the State. This provision strips State and local officials of 
their powers.
  States opposed to this expansion of Davis-Bacon could be ignored, 
snubbed, and overruled by the Secretary of Labor.
  The Federal Government must not impose its will upon State funded 
programs. There is no justification for this power grab. Local 
officials, not Federal bureaucrats, are better-suited to determine 
local contract provisions funded by local revolving funds.
  The costs of federally subsidized construction will dramatically rise 
in urban areas and even more so in rural areas.
  My State cannot afford to spend safe drinking water funds to finance 
artificially high construction costs.
  Davis-Bacon is simply a way to dig deeper and deeper into American 
taxpayer pockets. It is another way for Congress to increase the burden 
of Government on Americans.
  It is another way for Congress to make certain that it controls the 
hard-earned income of taxpayers instead of letting taxpayers spend 
their own money or if the money is to be spent to accomplish the most 
bang for taxpayer dollars.
  I commend my friend from North Carolina for his work on this issue 
and I urge my colleagues to join us in stripping this Davis-Bacon 
provision from this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time of the Senator from North Carolina 
has expired.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Metzenbaum] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I do not know any Member on the other 
side of the aisle for whom I have more respect than my good friend from 
Iowa. But when he suggests that the working people in this country are 
special interests, I have to stand and say I strongly take issue with 
that. These are average working Jacks and Jills who are working in the 
construction industry making $14, $16, $18 an hour, maybe $20 an hour.
  This amendment would repeal the prevailing wage protections of the 
Davis-Bacon Act for any Government contracts funded by the Safe 
Drinking Water Act.
  We do not want to do that. We do not want to say to average working 
people that you are supposed to work for less than the prevailing wage 
in that area. That is all this amendment is about.
  The proponents of this amendment have told you that workers do not 
need these protections. They have told you this amendment will save 
Federal dollars. So it sounds like a great idea. But the fact is you do 
not save Federal dollars on the backs of the working people of this 
country. At least I do not think we should.
  We have heard these arguments over and over, time and time again 
about this idea of saving money in this manner. We all know what is 
really going on here. This amendment is really about stripping 
longstanding labor protections away from American workers, for an 
illusory purpose of saving tax dollars. It has no place in this 
legislation.
  We go through this same routine year after year. But the fact is, if 
we have any real concern for American working people, we cannot even 
consider adopting this amendment.
  Let me explain briefly why workers need these protection. The Davis-
Bacon law requires Federal contractors to pay the prevailing wage in a 
locality when performing work under a federally funded construction 
contract. Congress enacted this law in 1931, 63 years ago, to codify a 
simple public policy--that the Federal Government should not pay 
substandard wages to American workers. Because of the Federal 
Government's massive purchasing power, paying substandard wages could 
undercut all other employers in a given area and drive wages down for 
all workers.
  That is not what I believe the U.S. Senate wants to bring about. The 
Davis-Bacon Act is premised on the notion that private contractors 
should not be permitted to use the shield of Federal contracts to 
engage in wage-busting activities.
  So Davis-Bacon stands for a principle that is eminently fair to both 
Federal contractors and to their employees: just pay a fair wage, just 
pay the prevailing wage in the community, nothing more. It does not ask 
for $5 more than the prevailing wage. Just pay what the majority of 
workers are earning for similar work in the area. What could possibly 
be fairer than that?
  Do not be fooled by the argument that America's construction workers 
do not need these protections. In fact, they need these protections 
more than ever.
  The real value of their wages has been going down for years, due to 
inflation.
  Moreover, these workers typically do not work a full 52 weeks, due to 
weather conditions, economic conditions, and the transient nature of 
construction work. The compensation for working in one of the most 
dangerous occupations in this country is not that high. If the 
prevailing wage law is eliminated, this modest earnings level of 
$22,000 to $23,000 will be slashed by low-wage contractors.
  Ultimately, this is an issue of basic fairness.
  Congress recognized that the Federal Government should encourage 
competitive bidding for federally funded construction contracts. But 
Congress also recognized that this competition should not come at the 
expense of construction industry workers.
  Moreover, Federal dollars raised by taxing the working men and women 
of this country should not be used to force down their wages. We have 
to stand here this afternoon to protect the principle of fairness that 
has served us well for 63 years. We have consistently rejected efforts 
to undermine or repeal these protections in the past. We should reject 
this amendment as well.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana has one minute and 40 
seconds.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask the proponents of the amendment be 
given 4 additional minutes. That will push back the 5:30 vote a little 
bit.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I might add I think it would be more fair 
to allocate it evenly, like say 2 and 2.
  Mr. CHAFEE. That is pretty short.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Three and three.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, each side is granted an 
additional 3 minutes.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleagues from 
Montana and Rhode Island for their courtesy.
  I also wish to compliment my friend and colleague, Senator 
Metzenbaum. I have had the pleasure of debating him on this issue 
several times.
  I also wish to compliment my friend and colleague, Senator Faircloth, 
for his amendment. I think it is an outstanding amendment. I appreciate 
where he is coming from--the private sector, the era that believes that 
individuals and businesses know how to set labor rates better than the 
Federal Government. He happens to be right.
  My friend from Ohio said, well, he believes in keeping the law as it 
is. I am looking at this bill before us. This does not keep the law as 
it is. As a matter of fact, this expands Davis-Bacon. It goes well 
beyond any scope of the original passage of Davis-Bacon, because it 
says that fair labor standards--or ``the administrator will have 
prevailing wage rates provided under this part including any assistance 
derived from repayments to the State loan fund.'' That is all State 
money.
  So what we are doing is expanding the Federal mandate of Davis-Bacon, 
and that mandates high labor rates to the States. It is an unfunded 
State mandate. States are going to be saying: Wait a minute, we have 
paid into this fund; that is our money, but you are mandating that we 
have the Federal Government set the labor rates on these projects when 
we are spending our own money. That is not right.
  In many cases, you are talking about wage rates far in excess of what 
is normal, standard, or what somebody might be earning when they are 
working on a private construction project. So if it is a Federal 
construction project, it may cost 50 percent more or 20 percent more. 
Those labor rates are going to be determined by the Secretary of Labor, 
using some survey instead of the private sector between employer and 
employee who know what that wage should be.
  So, Mr. President, this bill is a massive expansion of an unfunded 
mandate on States because it provides for prevailing wage rates 
including any assistance derived from repayments to the State loan 
fund.
  We are going to spend a lot of money in this bill--over a billion 
dollars. All that is covered by Davis-Bacon, under the revolving loan 
funds, which is $1 billion. Where the States have their own money, they 
should not be mandated to be paying exorbitant labor rates. Let them 
decide. Nineteen States have exemption from Davis-Bacon. We should not 
tell them they have to pay prevailing wage rates.
  This is an expansion of present law, and it should not happen. We 
should not be mandating States, counties, cities, and rural water 
districts, high labor rates, and that is what we are doing.
  Senator Faircloth has an outstanding amendment. I urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, essentially, very clearly, we have already 
debated this issue many times. The provisions of the bill apply to the 
same--the same provisions currently apply to the Clean Water Act 
revolving loan fund and to the Safe Drinking Water revolving loan fund. 
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. There are all 
kinds of studies that Davis-Bacon adds to the costs of construction, 
and it does not add to the cost of construction. A lot of studies show, 
frankly, that the provisions of Davis-Bacon providing for the 
prevailing wage actually reduce the cost of construction because of 
fewer delays. There is a more uniform application of the contract, 
fewer cost overruns, generally, sturdier construction.
  In the long haul, many studies show that the prevailing wage 
provision tends to not increase costs in a project, but actually 
reduces them. The short answer is that this is an issue that has been 
around a long time, and all Senators are very familiar with this issue. 
The committee did consider this amendment in committee. It was rejected 
in committee by a vote, I think, of 11-6, and it was the same 
amendment.
  I strongly urge Senators--just as members of the committee did not--
to not adopt the amendment.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will adopt the amendment 
offered by the Senator from North Carolina. This bill establishes a 
State revolving loan fund program to make it possible for small 
drinking water systems to comply with the requirements of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act.
  This is a loan fund, not a grant program. Drinking water systems can 
borrow money. But they must pay it back. Ultimately, it is local 
revenue that pays for compliance. The Federal dollars committed to 
these loan funds is just seed money. Does it make sense to require 
small communities who are struggling to meet the requirements of the 
Safe Drinking Water Act to spend even more to meet Davis-Bacon 
requirements that apply to a loan program? No, it does not.
  The theory of a revolving fund is that some assistance is provided by 
lowering interest rates on the loans. Small communities have difficulty 
borrowing in the municipal bond market. The SRF's give them a window 
for a loan at interest rates more can afford.
  But not if you pile the Davis-Bacon requirements onto the loan. A 
modest estimate of the impact is a 1.5-percent increase in the average 
cost of construction projects that are required to pay wages at Davis-
Bacon rates. Many estimates of the cost impact are much higher. But 
even at 1.5-percent, this requirement can have a large impact on the 
attractiveness of this SRF program for small communities.
  We have an SRF program in the Clean Water Act. Interest rates have 
averaged 2.5 percent below market rates. You can see that if Davis 
Bacon increases costs by just 1.5 percent--and that is the lowest 
estimate--it eats up most of the advantages of this program. In fact, 
most large cities have chosen not to participate in the Clean Water SRF 
because of the Davis-Bacon and other similar cost increasing strings 
that go with those loans.
  So, Mr. President, I think this Davis-Bacon requirement undermines 
the whole purpose of the SRF--access to low interest loan funds--and I 
would urge the Senate to support the Faircloth amendment and delete the 
Davis-Bacon requirement from this new program.
  Mr. President, I point out also, as the Senator from Oklahoma noted, 
this is an enlargement of Davis-Bacon. This is not carrying on some law 
that has been there for 65 years. This is a broadening of the law.
  I think we are ready to vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I think we are ready to yield back our 
time on the debate on the amendment offered by the Senator from North 
Carolina. I assume that the time on the other side has been used up, 
and we are ready to proceed to a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the order, the question is on agreeing 
to the amendment.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the 
Senator from New Hampshire on unfunded mandates, and I do so as a 
cosponsor of S. 933, which is Senator Kempthorne's Community Regulatory 
Relief Act. When I cosponsored that legislation, I did so because I 
believed that Congress does not give enough consideration to the costs 
it imposes on communities when it passes legislation. We debate the 
merits of each piece of legislation individually, but rarely do we 
consider the cumulative costs we impose on the communities.
  I cosponsored S. 933 because I believe that we need to be taking a 
comprehensive approach in our efforts to rein in the costs we impose on 
the communities in our States. We should not, however, agree to 
piecemeal approaches to fix this problem. Mr. President, I believe that 
the Gregg amendment represents such a piecemeal, and therefore 
inappropriate, effort to address this matter.
  Further, I believe that the unfunded mandate concept applied in a 
piecemeal manner to the Safe Drinking Water Act results in some 
potentially perverse conclusions. If we pass this amendment, we are 
essentially giving carte blanche authority to local officials to decide 
whether or not to enforce drinking water standards. There is no 
explanation in this amendment of exactly how it will determine what is 
funded and what is not funded. Essentially, this bill is a lawyer's 
dream come true, because as vague as the language of this amendment is, 
it would be very easy to construct a legal argument that any drinking 
water regulation was not fully funded.
  Mr. President, when I cosponsored the Kempthorne bill, I had no 
intention of jeopardizing the life and health of the citizens of my 
State. In light of the cryptosporidium outbreak that occurred in 
Milwaukee in April of 1993, I think we are all fully cognizant that the 
quality of our drinking water is directly related to human health and 
safety. If we have concerns about specific drinking water standards, 
let's debate those. But let's not gut the law that is charged with 
ensuring safe drinking water to the families in our States.
  It is my understanding that discussions are currently taking place 
between Senator Glenn, the chairman of the Senate Government Affairs 
Committee, and Senator Kempthorne, the sponsor of S. 933, regarding the 
appropriate manner to proceed in addressing the unfunded mandate 
concerns. It is also my understanding that the desire is to have this 
matter addressed in a comprehensive approach. For this reason, and the 
other reasons stated above, I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Gregg 
amendment. I support this amendment because, like many Senators, I have 
heard from hundreds of citizens in my State about the burdens of 
mandates, and I agree with Senator Gregg that the practice of passing 
the responsibility for Federal priorities to State and local government 
must stop.
  However, I would like to note that the Gregg amendment might be 
applied to the operations and maintenance of local public water 
systems, and I believe this may take the ``unfunded mandates'' argument 
a step too far. As with many other programs, providing safe drinking 
water is a shared responsibility among the Federal, State and local 
governments. We must strike a balance between guaranteeing that all 
people in this country have access to safe drinking water and allowing 
local communities to set local priorities. In general, daily operation 
and maintenance costs--including testing for contaminants--should be 
the responsibility of the local community and should be funded locally.
  Despite my misgivings about its scope, my vote in favor of the 
amendment offered by my friend from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, is a 
clear statement of my support for an end to the practice of unfunded 
Federal mandates.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order. Which 
amendment will be voted on first?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment of the 
Senator from New Hampshire and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is 
absent because of illness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 115 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--43

     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Sasser
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Shelby
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1712) was agreed 
to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, what is pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the amendment of the 
Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from North Carolina.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is 
absent because of illness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Ms. Mikulski). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 116 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

     Bennett
     Bond
     Boren
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Roth
     Simpson
     Smith
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                                NAYS--60

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Simon
     Specter
     Stevens
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Shelby
       
  So the amendment (No. 1714 was rejected.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WALLOP addressed the Chair.

                          ____________________